Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MERSEYSIDE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Economic Planning Department

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the scope of work undertaken by the Scottish Economic Planning Department.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): The Scottish Economic Planning Department advises me on matters relating to industrial and economic development in Scotland, including the Scottish aspects of regional policies and the development of North Sea oil resources.

Mr. Fletcher: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Is he aware that in a letter dated 5th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), the Chairman of the Scottish National Party said that it was the policy of that party that the land of Scotland should be held only by Scottish citizens or by companies registered in Scotland with majority control by people of Scottish citizenship? Will he ask the SEPD to investigate what effect this would have on the Scottish economy if it ever happened, and what would happen to companies like IBM, Timex, NCR and

Burroughs and Honeywell, which contribute tremendously to the Scottish economy?

Mr. Ross: I have not seen that letter, of course, but it must have considerable implications for the Scottish economy, especially in relation to oil developments. Many of the companies creating growth are not Scottish-based or made up of majority holdings by Scottish citizens. This shows the introverted nonsense of the Nationalists, which leads them into this kind of irresponsibility. I do not know how Sir Hugh Fraser can live with this when he was prepared to sell all his Scottish interests to Boots of England.

Mr. MacArthur: Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to this question even further? What proportion of Scottish employment is provided by companies which do not meet the narrow racialist requirements land down in this latest statement by the Scottish National Party? How would this proposal affect the House of Fraser and what would happen to the many American companies which provide so much employment in Scotland? Will he consult his colleagues in order to present to Scotland the effect of this monstrous and narrow notice to quit which has been given to so much of Scottish industry by the Scottish National Party?

Mr. Ross: Now that this policy has been proclaimed, there is certainly fertile ground for research for us all. When the question is widened to the growth, and the change in the pattern, of the Scottish economy because it has attracted firms from outside Scotland and outside the United Kingdom—into Lanarkshire and Fife, for example, and other areas of heavy unemployment, where we appreciate what they have done—one sees how out of touch with reality the SNP has become.

Power Station Sites (Planning Inquiries)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total estimated expense of the planning inquiries held at Bo'ness in relation to the proposed Carriden power station site and in East Lothian in relation to the proposed Towers site; and whether he is satisfied with the current system of determining


sites for potential power stations, and in related developments.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Millan): Details of the costs incurred by all the parties concerned in the inquiries into the proposed power stations at Carriden and Torness are not available to me.
I am satisfied that the procedure for considering sites for potential power stations and related developments meets the requirements of statute and balances the interests of the parties. I do not however rule out the possibility of further improvement.

Mr. Dalyell: When we meet the requirements of statutes, are we sure that this kind of decision is best made by opposing batteries of lawyers?

Mr. Millan: Unless we have an acceptable substitute for the present planning procedures, the public inquiry is an essential part of that process. However, as I have made clear before, the actual decision about the power station itself—and authority for that—is taken as a separate decision by the Secretary of State, so that the wider matters of energy policy and the rest can be considered then.

Mr. Ancram: On the second part of that question, will the Secretary of State confirm that in coming to a decision on the present application for the Torness site his right hon. Friend will have regard not just to the physical suitability of the site but also to the damage and dangers which the power station could cause to the environment, to housing and to employment in the area?

Mr. Millan: All these matters are absolutely intrinsic to planning decisions of this kind. In this case, as in others, my right hon. Friend will keep these matters in mind.

US Navy Personnel (Children's Education)

Mr. MacCormick: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children of United States Navy personnel stationed at the Polaris base on the Holy Loch are receiving their primary education in Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Robert Hughes): This information is not available centrally.

Mr. MacCormick: In view of the widespread misgivings of parents in the area—[Interruption.] I am in a position to know about this—does the hon. Gentleman not agree that as children of United States personnel are there for such a short time; as they, therefore, disrupt the work of the school, and as the United States Navy provides petrol stations and shops, there is no reason why the United States should not also provide such facilities as schools, especially as at one school in the area 200 American children will be attending on a short-term basis?

Mr. Hughes: We have absolutely no evidence that the number of children of American Service personnel is causing the kind of difficulty suggested by the hon. Gentleman. People who live in this country are subject to the laws of this country, and they are entitled to send their children to local schools. I hope that we shall not have children of foreign residents in Britain singled out in this way as being the cause of any difficulties in schools.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As a Member representing a constituency which also has within it an American air base, may I completely dissociate myself from the remarks of the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) and say how much we welcome the presence of the Americans in Scotland? Will the hon. Gentleman please deny the talk of segregation of a friendly Power, put forward by the Scottish National Party?

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I reject segregation on any basis of nationality, religion or race. It does the people of Scotland no good to suggest that in some way these children are unwelcome. The views of the people of Scotland about the Polaris base are a different matter; but the children should not be castigated in this way.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Can the hon. Gentleman give any information about the number of Scots living and working in the United States, temporarily or permanently, whose children are educated


there, and whether this kind of reciprocal arrangement is healthy both in the understanding of the internationalism of Scotsmen and the way in which this can also work out in terms of international economic arguments?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I have no such figures about the number of Scots in the United States or anywhere else. One would hope that children of different cultures and backgrounds mixing together could do much to foster international understanding. The kind of thoughts behind the original Question add nothing to that, or to the traditional Scottish cultural and friendly relations with people throughout the world.

Mr. Baxter: I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is being a bit unfair. With due respect, a simple enough question was put to him, asking whether this has dislocated the school activities in that area. If it has, steps should be taken to see that the local inhabitants' children are given a full and adequate education. That is the purpose behind the Question, and I would not want it to go forth from the House that hon. Members are so hidebound as to be prejudiced, either on one side or the other.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not asked a question, which he should have done.

Mr. Hughes: Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I think that the implied question requires an answer. We have absolutely no evidence that the education of children in the area to which the hon. Member for Argyll referred is being disrupted by the children of the United States Navy personnel. But if there were at any time to be identified signs of stress in Scottish education in any area, the answer would be not to segregate them off but to see that a full education was provided for all the children in the area.

Devolution

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the views he has received on the discussion document on devolution.

Mr. William Ross: No, Sir. It is for the bodies and individuals putting forward views to decide whether they wish to make them public.

Mr. Steel: Will the Secretary of State repudiate the widely-published views of the Executive of the Scottish Labour Party on this subject and reaffirm that it is the policy of the Government to proceed to honour the pledge given in the Queen's Speech and to produce proposals later this year for devolution to Scotland?

Mr. Ross: As far as that is concerned everyone is entitled to his views, even the Labour Party. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) seems to give the impression that, strangely enough, the Liberal Party, whose views in respect of devolution were turned down by Kilbrandon, is united—all three members of it. What we are concerned about is to ensure that all views are received and heard, and that, where necessary and desired, there shall be oral discussions in relation to all points concerning Kilbrandon.

Mr. George Lawson: Will my right hon. Friend explain to the Liberal Chief Whip that if Scotland insists upon a Stormont-type administraion, Scotland will have no complaints if it is left with a Northern Irish basis of representation in this House?

Mr. Ross: The whole purpose of what we have done and the discussions into which we are entering—and our hope for debate on this matter—is eventually to have something that is acceptable to the people of Scotland, and in relation to which they know the limitations and the consequences of what is being done. All these matters are important.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now state his plans for devolution in the government of Scotland.

Mr. William Ross: As already announced, the Government intend, after completing consultations with interested organisations, to publish a White Paper setting out their proposals for Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend any overwhelming evidence of a


desire in Scotland for a separate elected Assembly? Will he take steps to re-read the pamphlet called "Don't Butcher Scotland's Future", or something like that, and bring it up to date, because it is just as relevant today as it was when it was issued?

Mr. Ross: As my hon. Friend knows, a considerabe amount of evidence was given in the Kilbrandon Report. One of the things that was absolutely clear was that many people have differing views on the meaning of devolution. Not many of them knew what devolution had already taken place, and they had not given adequate thought, if any thought at all, to the consequences of various schemes. Kilbrandon produced schemes and we put them down for debate and discussion. We have had a good response from organisations to the invitation to send in written evidence, and many of the people concerned will be discussing this in the near future. During next week and the week after, I and my hon. Friend the Minister of State in the Commons will be meeting many of these people to go into points raised in the letters. As for the public, the number of letters I have received so far is 132, of which 65 came via one newspaper.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the convolutions within the Labour Party in Scotland will not hold back the Government's proposals?

Mr. Ross: We in the Labour Party do not disguise that this is a very important issue, in respect of which there are differing points of view. This was brought out by Kilbrandon. What troubles me is the monolithic nonsense we hear from the party calling itself the Scottish National Party, which does not believe in devolution and wants only separation.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Is the Secretary of State aware that what we want is not necessarily devolution but less legislation, and that that will solve most of the difficulties?

Mr. Ross: We can have devolution without legislation.

List D School Places

Mr. Harry Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make

a statement on the shortage of List D school places.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I have recently had discussions with the local authority associations and other interests concerned. All are aware of the present difficulties and there is general agreement on the need for a wider range of facilities, including intermediate treatment facilities, to meet the needs of children coming before the hearings. Some additional facilities are being provided or are being planned, and any further proposals will be given every possible encouragement within the resources available.

Mr. Ewing: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I point out to him that the children's hearings system in Scotland is now in very serious danger of breaking down completely, not because the people working the system do not want to make it work but because the facilities are not available to enable them to give the prescribed treatment to the children? My hon. Friend talks about intermediate forms of treatment; will he expand on that matter?

Mr. Hughes: First, I do not go as far as my hon. Friend and say that the system is in danger of breaking down. One understands that there are difficulties. For example, in 1972—the latest year for which figures have been published—children's hearings dealt with 23,144 reports submitted to them. They have, therefore, a tremendous job to do. But all the people to whom I have spoken about this have said that the additional provision of List D places was not the answer. By intermediate treatment I mean something between simple supervision by a social worker and people being taken out of the community into a special residential establishment. This can be done in a number of ways. Experiments are taking place in Edinburgh, Clackmannan and elsewhere. The idea is that the children will get the care and attention they need without necessarily being removed from the home environment.

Mr. Monro: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that the Labour Party, when in opposition, criticised the lack of List D places? In the four months since the General Election, has the hon. Gentleman formulated any policies to provide


more places? How many more are in the pipeline now than were in it in February?

Mr. Hughes: Certainly we criticised the lack of places. During the hon. Gentleman's term of office the number of places went down, and in the three years that he was in office the waiting list grew from virtually nil to 607, which was the count at 31st March. We cannot provide additional places overnight. The hon. Gentleman knows of the 80 additional places which are planned—certainly planned by the administration of which he was a member—and the 150 assessment centres. We cannot start erecting more buildings for List D places overnight. This is a process which must be considered. We are not satisfied that List D placing is necessarily the whole answer.

Mr. Robertson: Will my hon. Friend, nevertheless, not be complacent about this problem, which is very serious and pressing? The information that I have from the Paisley local authority is that more than one-third of the time of the social work department is taken up in trying to deal with this problem. Unless there is some other provision, either of intermediate treatment or List D places, the system is in danger of breaking down, with very severe consequences.

Mr. Hughes: I am far from complacent on this issue. From the discussions I have had I am aware of the problem and the fact that we need to provide proper care for the children who land in trouble. Those children are our primary concern, which is why we shall be coming forward with proposals following the wide-ranging discussions I had on how we can help the situation. For example, among the suggestions put forward is that instead of the children going into residential care they can attend List D schools on a day-to-day basis. There are a number of different ways constantly under discussion, and we are far from complacent.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must speed up a little.

Aberdeen (Road Communications)

Mr. Fairgrieve: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects

work to start on making the road to Aberdeen and the north dual carriageway.

Mr. Millan: Substantial lengths of dual carriageway already exist or are under construction between Perth and Dundee and between Stonehaven and Aberdeen. My right hon. Friend has also recently agreed in principle that dual carriageways north of Aberdeen should be extended as far as Balmedie. However, forward estimates of traffic do not at present justify such provision over the entire length.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I thank the Minister for that partial reply, but does he realise that Aberdeen, which is the oil capital of Europe and is fast becoming the production centre of what will be Britain's biggest single industry, in financial terms, is still joined to the rest of the United Kingdom by what is more or less a cart track?

Mr. Millan: I do not think that I would accept that, but considerable improvements are going on.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: Will the Minister look particularly at the case of the road north of Balmedie, to Ellon and Peterhead, where the construction traffic and traffic to the power stations and the gas terminal are putting an enormous strain on local road resources? Will he ask the Secretary of State to have a special look at this road and drive on it when he visits the area on Friday?

Mr. Millan: I have already travelled on that road recently and I appreciate that it is by no means adequate. We are providing dual carriageways as far as Balmedie and there are other improvements north of that with, perhaps, a bypass of Ellon. There will be other improvements, and I agree that they are needed.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the Minister look specifically at the question of the Montrose relief road—a town which has experienced tremendous and very fast oil development and where a great deal of congestion is building up? I hope that it has a high degree of urgency in his programme.

Mr. Millan: I shall look at these specific matters. If any hon. Member has a particular question I hope that he will put it down so that I can deal with it.

Western Isles (Sea Services)

Mr. Donald Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for assisting sea services to the Western Isles with a view to reducing the cost of living in that area.

Mr. Millan: During the current financial year, Government support for the sea services to the Western islands of Scotland will amount to about £800,000. Of this about £540,000 will be operating subsidy and about £250,000 grants and loans towards the modernisation of piers and harbours.

Mr. Stewart: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that in the Western Isles wages are lower than the national average and that the cost of living, mainly because of freight charges, is considerably higher than almost anywhere else in the United Kingdom? Since the Government have announced a massive subsidy for the railways throughout the mainland system, does the Minister not feel that the previous Government's withdrawal of subsidies on certain sections of the sea links to the Western Isles was a retrograde and callous step, and will he seek to put that right?

Mr. Millan: I am not responsible for anything done by the previous Government. The subsidies are still substantial. Of course, there is also the opportunity for local authorities now to make their own payments under the 1968 Act, and those payments are in turn heavily subsidised by the Government.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that due the effect of freight charges, the cost of living in the islands of Scotland is considerably higher than in London? If London requires special treatment, why is that treatment not also given to these parts of Scotland?

Mr. Millan: There are special considerations in the case of London. Transport charges for the Scottish islands already receive considerable financial assistance. I shall be meeting the local authorities—if they are willing to meet me—next week to talk about these matters.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Since millions of workers now have threshold agreements under which their wages go up according

to the cost of living index, would it not be sensible at this stage to have regional cost-of-living indices, so that people's wages keep pace with the real costs which they have to face?

Mr. Millan: I am not sure that every region would welcome that. Threshold agreements are nothing to do with regional differentials in the cost of living and, anyway, they were introduced by the Conservatives and not by us.

Oakley, Fife (Health Centre)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with the provision of a health centre in Oakley, Fife.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Tenders were invited on 4th May for return by 7th June 1974. The latest date for acceptance is 7th August, and the results of the invitation are at present being examined.

Mr. Hunter: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Hunterston saga mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) yesterday is not the only one to crop up this week? The Oakley centre is another one. This centre was fourth on Fife County Council's lists of priorities 12 years ago, and I raised the matter several times with Ministers, in and out of Parliament, for two years. Is my hon. Friend further aware that the people in Oakley and district have to suffer an inadequate chiropody service, by mobile van, and the old people particularly are suffering? Will he inject some urgency into the matter?

Mr. Hughes: I am aware of the saga to which my hon. Friend referred. The previous tenders in 1973 were too high and fresh tenders had to be sought. We simply must keep some control over costs in relation to estimates. The tenders are now in and we are examining them, and if it is possible to accept one of them we shall do so.

Mr. Gray: Will the Minister bear in mind that his Department has been pursued about this matter in respect of Tain, Dingwall and Alness, in my constituency, for a considerable time? Will he do everything in his power to make sure that these are proceeded with without delay?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member had better put down a Question about that, since Oakley is in Fife and is not in the hon. Member's constituency. I take his point, but I would not be surprised to find that they were held back because of the expenditure cuts of 17th December.

Mr. Monro: No, no, no.

Sewage and Sludge (Dumping at Sea)

Sir John Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information is available on the amount of sewage and sludge being dumped at sea round the coasts of Scotland at the present time; what increased amounts are likely to be dumped in the future; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Millan: About 1½, million tons of sewage sludge from 18 local authorities are dumped annually by Glasgow Corporation in the Fifth of Clyde. Dundee may also be dumping sewage sludge in the North Sea by the end of this decade. Edinburgh Corporation proposes to dump annually about half a million tons of sludge off the east coast from 1976. Monitoring has not shown that dumping has any serious effects.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does the Minister agree that the Firth of Forth fishermen suffer a great deal from dumping? For instance, surplus ammunition has been dumped in the Firth, and now they have to contend with sewage sludge. Will the Minister make certain that assurances are given to the industry that no harm will come to fish as a result of these operations?

Mr. Millan: I believe that there have been discussions and representations about getting an appropriate site, but I have no evidence that the dumping affects fishing or anything else. Any difficulties arising there would be a good deal fewer than those arising at present as a result of raw sewage being pumped into the Forth.

Mr. MacCormick: Is the Minister aware that one of the most important growth industries on the west coast of Scotland is fish farming, which faces particular problems as a result of this activity?

Mr. Millan: I shall certainly keep that in mind. This is Scottish sludge we are talking about.

Service Men (Special Marriage Licences)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to abolish the necessity for Service men, intending to marry girls living in Scotland, having to obtain a special licence at a cost, because they cannot fulfil the residential qualification due to service with Her Majesty's Forces; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): I notice that in the Order Paper my hon. Friend is styled "Sir". I am sorry that I have been denied the privilege of congratulating my hon. Friend upon a knighthood.
Special arrangements can be made for Service men whose homes are in Scotland, but legislation would be required to remove the residential qualification for those whose homes are elsewhere. Abolition of the residential qualification and of sheriff's licences was among the recommendations of the committee under the chairmanship of Lord Kilbrandon, which made a comprehensive review of the marriage law of Scotland and reported in 1969. I cannot say when it will be possible to introduce legislation based on the committee's recommendations.

Mr. Dempsey: May I reciprocate by congratulating my hon. Friend on his appointment? I am sorry, however, that he spoiled my elevation.
Does my hon. Friend not think it unfair that a non-Scot, because he is in the service of Her Majesty's Forces abroad and is anxious to marry a Scottish lassie, should be compelled to have to apply for a special licence which, with solicitors' fees, can cost between £15 and £20? Is this not unfair and unjustifiable? The girl might be worth it, but I do not think the licence is. Will my hon. Friend take immediate measures to alleviate this charge to soldiers who are defending this country's interests abroad?

Mr. Brown: Many hon. Members would think it a reasonable price to pay for marriage. However, there is a practical problem here, which springs from the fact that the law in Scotland


is different, and so different regulations apply. If my hon. Friend has any specific cases I should be glad to look at them—

Mr. Dempsey: I have three.

Mr. Brown: I shall be glad to see whether I can help in those cases. The rules for Scottish Service men are quite explicit and not unduly burdensome, but this matter raises a problem of legislation. We have this matter on board and we shall give it early attention, consistent with fitting it into the parliamentary time table.

Sports Council

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the work of the Scottish Sports Council.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Council published a report on its work in November 1973 and I understand that it expects to publish a further report later this year.

Mr. Taylor: To what extent is the council involved in the discussions on the improvement and modernisation of Hampden Park, and when do the Government expect to be in a position to make a statement on this matter?

Mr. Hughes: There is a separate working party looking at the future of Hampden Park and it is expected to report towards the end of the autumn. The chairman of the Scottish Sports Council, Mr. Laurie Liddell, also happens to be chairman of the working party. We shall await the report of the working party.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: Will my hon. Friend suggest to the working party that some of us on the Government side of the House are a little fed up with public money being poured into private enterprises? If the Government are foolish enough to do this in relation to Hampden Park, will they also consider Lanark football grounds, such as Shawfield Stadium, Fir Park, Broomfield Park and Douglas Park, which need money injected into them?

Mr. Hughes: I would not like to comment on the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. With regard to Hampden Park, it must be recognised that that is a Scottish national stadium and we

want to see the best facilities provided for international events. We must await the report of the working party and see what transpires. If my hon. Friend cares to talk over these matters with me later I shall be glad to go into them.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) appears to want Hampden Park nationalised? Will my hon. Friend see that this is arranged and, in doing so, arrange for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to kick off in the first match, which would probably be between the Younger Generation and the Taylor Maids?

Secondary School Teachers

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many secondary school teachers qualified at the colleges of education this session and how many have accepted employment, respectively, in Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, Glasgow and Dumfriesshire.

Mr. Robert Hughes: About 3,000 secondary teachers will qualify this session. Of this number, 265 have so far accepted employment in Lanarkshire, 341 in Glasgow. 207 in Renfrewshire and 20 in Dumfriesshire.

Mr. Monro: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are glad that there has been such a large number of successful candidates from colleges of education? Will he do everything possible to see that education authorities fulfil their promise to recruit only to those areas which are seriously short-staffed, so as to help the pupil-teacher ratio in the next session?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows that an appeal was sent to those education authorities outside areas of stress asking them to restrain recruitment, but I am afraid that the replies have been generally disappointing. Only eight authorities have given a commitment to restrain their recruitment without further action. I can only express the hope that education authorities will accept that there are serious problems in the west of Scotland and will limit their own recruitment.

Council Houses (Sales to Tenants)

Mr. Barry Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is his policy to restrict the freedom of


local authorities and new town development corporations to sell houses to sitting tenants who want to buy their own houses.

Mr. Millan: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend's reply on 9th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queens Park (Mr. McElhone).

Mr. Henderson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this decision to make further restrictions by stealth on the sale of council houses to sitting tenants will strike dismay in the hearts of many people who believe that it is an extremely valuable way to help tenants and those who wish to buy houses, as well as all the ratepayers?
Is he aware that, in the new town of Cumbernauld, of 10,000 houses put up by the development corporation over 1,000 have already been sold to sitting tenants, and there is a large waiting list? This action has produced a universal welcome in the new town.
Will the hon. Gentleman undertake, if he brings in restrictions on new towns as he has done on local authority housing, that those who already have applications in when the guillotine comes down will still be allowed to buy their own homes?

Mr. Millan: I do not see how a circular to local authorities can be interpreted as acting by stealth. The policy on new towns is rather different, and always has been, and it is under consideration at the moment, as an answer given yesterday shows. Any commitments that have been entered into with sitting tenants will be honoured, and will not be affected by the circular.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not a restriction of freedom, and that it is the realisation of local authorities, and, I hope, of his Department, that most people in Scotland want houses at reasonable rents? We are not opposed in principle to the selling of houses, but selling houses of this kind does not add a single house to the pool. Will my hon. Friend resist any attempts with regard to selling houses while people still want houses to rent?

Mr. Millan: I am already resisting that. The change is one to greater restriction. There is still much unsatis

fled demand for houses to rent in Scotland and the primary responsibility of local authorities should be to meet that demand. We are not willing to see houses sold in areas where there are still demands for houses to rent.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the people of Scotland know better what they want than does the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller)? Is it not an outrageous and spiteful policy? Is it true that the Government are preventing local authorities from offering these houses at a discount, as they were previously entitled to do? Is he aware that, bearing in mind that our previous policy was frustrated by some foolish local authorities, the Conservative Party is fully committed to ensure that every council tenant in Scotland who wants to buy his home can do so from the moment that we have another Conservative Government?

Mr. Millan: That sounds rather like the traditional Conservative Party way of dictating to local authorities in regard to their housing policies. I do not accept anything that the hon. Gentleman has said.
There are certain conditions involved in these cases where authority to sell is to be granted in future, and these conditions will affect valuation. It is all laid out in the circular. I shall have great pleasure in sending a copy of the circular to the hon. Gentleman.

Local Government Staff (Recruitment)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the new local authorities regarding the need for economies in staff recruitment.

Mr. Millan: My noble Friend the Minister of State discussed this matter with local government representatives earlier this week.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am glad to hear that. Will the Minister assure the House that his noble Friend impressed upon the new regional and district authorities that the purpose of the reform of local government is not the aggrandisement of the staffs of local government, and that at a time like this what we should be hoping and expecting to see is not an increase


but a diminution in bureaucracy for the benefit of all the ratepayers?

Mr. Millan: I do not think that any local authorities are under the impression that local government reorganisation is for the aggrandisement of the staff. All of them are aware of the need for economy in these matters.

Grant-aided Schools

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on his policy towards grant-aided schools.

Mr. Robert Hughes: As already announced, the grant payable for 1974–75 will be held at the same level as for 1973–74. Otherwise, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 10th April.—[Vol. 872, c. 414–5.]

Mr. Rifkind: I am not surprised that the Minister has nothing to add. Is he aware that the Government's statement to which he has just referred has been seen in Scotland as a spiteful and vindictive act, pursued for purely ideological purposes? Is he aware that the only practical effect of the statement has been to drive parents of very modest means to withdraw their children from grant-aided schools? Was that the Government's objective?

Mr. Hughes: The Government's objective in holding the grant is consistent with their policy and the Labour Party policy stated over many years, namely, to see that eventually we have the integration of grant-aided schools into the normal State system.

Mr. MacArthur: How does the Minister justify restricting freedom of choice in education to the very rich?

Mr. Hughes: I do not justify it at all. It is Conservative Members who justify freedom of education for the very rich.

Mr. Monro: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall ask leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Public Correspondence

Mr. Ancram: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many letters he has received from the general public since assuming office.

Mr. William Ross: This information could not be obtained without disproportionate effort.

Mr. Ancram: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman may not be prepared to make a disproportionate effort to find the answer. Is he aware, from the correspondence he has received since the election, of the growing concern among low-paid workers in Scotland—who do not have large unions to pressurise the Government—that the only effect of the social compact so far is to drive their wages further and further down compared with those of other people, and that they are now looking for some form of relativities policy to stop them becoming the new poor of the 1970s?

Mr. Ross: We receive about 8,000 items of mail a day at St. Andrew's House, and I reckon that today we have not received a single one on the subject the hon. Gentleman raises. The number of letters we receive on any subject is usually in inverse proportion to the din created by Opposition Members.

Aerosol Paint Sprays (Vandalism)

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the interests of curbing vandalism, he will consider seeking powers to prohibit the sale of paint spray guns to teenagers.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I am concerned about the extent of the damage to property caused by the use of aerosol paint sprays. But I do not think it would be right to prohibit the sale of articles which have many legitimate uses.

Mr. Galbraith: I was not suggesting that their sale should be restricted outright. Would it not be possible to impose restrictions on sales to young people, in the same way as restrictions are imposed on buying drink, fireworks and similar goods?

Mr. Brown: That is not a very practical or constructive suggestion. In 1970 there were 12 million aerosol paint sprays sold in the country. It would be very difficult to enforce the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Minister advise local authorities to learn some of the lessons of the success of East Kilbride in dealing with the matter? First, the


local authority there attempts to remove the effects of paint spraying as soon as it occurs. Secondly, it provides enough community facilities to make sure that people have better things to do.

Mr. Brown: Many hon. Members will be aware of the imaginative approach to the problem. We have the Scottish Council on Crime, and a committee is in the process of being set up to deal with truancy and indiscipline in primary and secondary schools. I believe that along with the efforts of social work departments, this kind of imaginative treatment will make a big contribution to minimising the problem.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister agree that it is a desperately serious problem? We read in the papers this morning that one local authority is employing private security firms to try to control vandalism in some areas. Would not it be a simple remedy if those who defaced public buildings with aerosol cans were forced to clean up the buildings?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir, but I think that it must be done in co-operation with the authorities. I am not suggesting that the hon. Member has ever sprayed a building—I know that he is a vandal in other matters—but if he had done so he would know that there are problems in getting the paint off certain surfaces. That is why I say that it must be done in cooperation with the authorities, while involving the culprits.

Education

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future development of education in Scotland.

Mr. Robert Hughes: There is too much happening in Scottish education to encompass within a short reply. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific point in mind I shall be happy to deal with it.

Mr. MacArthur: I have a specific point. Will the hon. Gentleman devote less time to hounding grant-aided and independent schools and spend more time trying to ease the scandalous conditions that exist in many local authority schools in Scotland?

Mr. Hughes: I spend no time at all hounding the grant-aided schools. Most

of the time that I devote to dealing with education is spent in trying to deal with the inheritance the hon. Gentleman's Government left, and the scandalous situation in education.

Mr. Monro: Does the Minister realise that he has made a monstrous statement about grant-aided schools today? Why has he not given the normal increase in grant to cover increased costs and salaries for the grant-aided schools this year? Does he appreciate that he has effectively put up the fees by 25 per cent. for many parents who cannot afford them, and that he has had no consultation with the grant-aided schools? That is no way for an Under-Secretary in charge of education to behave.

Mr. Hughes: I shall be happy to deal with many of those points if the hon. Gentleman is lucky enough to have the opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment. The fees charged in grant-aided schools would have had to be increased irrespective of our decision. What we have done will cost the average parent of a pupil at a grant-aided school £10 per annum. In any event the parents would probably have had to find an additional £40 because of increased costs.

Mr. MacCormack: Does the Minister agree apart from the matter of making a survey of education that it is rather silly to have Scottish schools administered through the Scottish Education Department while Scottish universities are run by the University Grants Committee? Does he agree that we should have our own separate organisation for university education in Scotland?

Mr. Hughes: I am not prepared to comment on that. If the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question on the Order Paper he shall have an answer.

Drinking Convictions (Young Persons)

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the figures for under-age drinking convictions in Scotland for the years 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The number of young people under 18 convicted in 1973 of buying excisable liquor or consuming it in a bar was 1,216. Because of a


change in the method of collecting statistics, exactly comparable figures for earlier years are not available. In 1970 the number convicted of buying liquor was 719, in 1971 it was 766, and in 1972 it was 688.

Mr. Gray: The Minister will appreciate that these figures are most alarming. As a matter of urgency will he take steps to arrange for consultation between the Scottish Health Education Unit, the Scottish Education Department and local authorities throughout Scotland so that young people may be made fully aware of the dangers of this habit?

Mr. Brown: I do not think that it is wise to use exaggerated phrases about alarm. It is certainly a subject that gives great cause for concern, particularly for those who are working with young people. Some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised are my hon. Friend's responsibility. Those matters are on board, and there is a pretty substantial programme of health education, which includes the dangers of drinking and alcoholism.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the Minister say how the Government's consideration of the Clayson Report is progressing, and what progress is being made on consultation about the report? Will he say when the Government will be able to make a statement on Clayson and to bring forward proposals to the House?

Mr. Brown: It is probably making as much progress as it was under the hon. Gentleman's régime. There has been no great public pressure for reform. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are considering all the specific recomendations in the Clayson Report, and we hope to make an announcement as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN OFFICE

Mr. Ancram: asked the Lord Advocate whether he is satisfied with the present relationship between the Crown Office and the general public.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): The Crown Office is not an office which normally has direct contact with the general public. Most of its functions are carried out by the procurator

fiscal who, of course, operate in all areas of Scotland. Such outside relations as it has are with the legal profession and the courts.

Mr. Ancram: I appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point about the Crown Office having contact with other members of the legal profession. Is he aware that sometimes in Scotland a decision is taken by the Crown Office not to prosecute prima facie cases without the people of Scotland being told why? Does he think that it would be a good idea, when that sort of thing happens, to alleviate suspicion about what goes on in the Crown Office by the Crown Office's explaining why no proceedings were taken?

The Lord Advocate: If the hon. Gentleman has any case in mind, no doubt he will write to me about it or table a specific Question. Most Crown Office decisions are taken on evidence that is supplied by the police and by the procurators fiscal. That information obviously must be treated as confidential by the Crown, otherwise the investigation of crime would be hopelessly impeded. It is normally not possible to give reasons, but reasons are not refused by the Crown Office if it is felt that they can properly be given.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: May I put a _general proposition to the Lord Advocate? There is no definition of the powers of the Lord Advocate. Too often in the recent past Lord Advocates have been too keen to say "This is not my responsibility" or "I do not have power over this." Would not it be a good proposition, in the interests of justice generally in Scotland, if the Lord Advocate were a bit more of an empire builder, and if he were inclined to say, "This may well be within my powers, because my powers are not too well defined"?

The Lord Advocate: I think that the hon. Lady is trying to encourage me in imperialist tendencies, which I must repudiate. The office of Lord Advocate is, as the hon. Lady knows, an ancient one, and its powers have been developed through the ages in a pragmatic and empirical way. The result is a flexible and useful office, which would be greatly reduced in value if we tried to define and outline any specific function.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Lord Advocate when he will next meet the Scottish Law Commission.

The Lord Advocate: The date of my next formal meeting with the Scottish Law Commission has not yet been fixed. The exchange of views and information, however, does not depend solely upon such meetings, and less formal exchanges take place as circumstances may require.

Mr. MacArthur: During the Lord Advocate's formal or informal exchanges with the Law Commission will he seek its views on the present powers of the children's panels? Is he aware of the feeling that the panels' powers are often thought to be over-adequate, or inadequate, and that some middle sanction is now required to combat growing vandalism in Scotland?

The Lord Advocate: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes)—in reply to Question No. 5, dealt specifically with the administrative arrangements which are available under existing legislation. The hon. Gentleman asked me about future legislation. He should give attention to the existing provisions in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. For example, in Section 43(4) of that Act there is a provision, which he has not mentioned, for intermediate attendance or residence for 21 days for investigation. There is also provision in Section 44(1) for supervision. They are flexible intermediate methods of treatment, which the hon. Gentleman seems to ignore.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman expect to hear from the Scottish Law Commission when he next meets it that it is downright disappointed with the extremely complacent attitude shown by his right hon. and hon. Friends following the answers given earlier this afternoon about List D schools? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider the problems of law which arise as a consequence of matrimonial disputes, particularly when there has been a history of violence?

The Lord Advocate: I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take note of the hon. Gentleman's first point. That is a matter which does not fall directly within my sphere of jurisdiction or within the jurisdiction of the Scottish Law Commission.
I am hoping to meet the Chairman of the Scottish Law Commission towards the end of this month, and among the matters that will be discussed is an active programme of law reform, which is already under way with this Government.

Mr. David Steel: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman meets the Chairman of the Scottish Law Commission will he be able to give the commission any assurance, with his helpful nature, about the reform of divorce law in Scotland, for which the commission has been pressing and which, I believe, has growing public support?

The Lord Advocate: Of course, matters of matrimonial law reform cover a very wide range. The hon. Gentleman may have in mind divorce law reform. The hon. Gentleman referred to matrimonial law generally, and that includes divorce. With regard to divorce, I refer the hon. Gentleman to answers given on that subject in recent weeks. I have nothing to add to those answers. Matrimonial law reform generally, and not merely divorce, is a matter under consideration by the Scottish Law Society in a remit covering not only matrimonial law in the wider sense, but family law generally.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In view of concern in Scotland about crimes of violence—concern that is shared on both sides of the House—when the right hon. and learned Gentleman next meets the Scottish Law Commission or any of its committees will he ascertain when the Thomson Committee is likely to bring forward its recommendations relating to the powers of search for offensive weapons?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter in which I have a deep interest. I was fortunate enough to attend a meeting of the Scottish Council on Crime this summer. The council is concerned with this matter. A report is expected or hoped for from the Thomson Committee


before the end of the year. I have no doubt that this is one of the many matters that it will take up.

Oral Answers to Questions — EEC SOCIAL FUND GRANTS

Mr. Blaker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Under-Secretary of State for Employment answered a Question from me yesterday about the amount allocated to the United Kingdom in the year 1973 by the European Social Fund. The figure he gave in that answer conflicted with the figure that had been given in an earlier answer. I wonder whether it would be suitable for the hon. Gentleman to put the record straight.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Fraser): The figure I gave, of £19·8 million, was the figure for Great Britain. I may have given the impression that it was the United Kingdom figure. The figure for the United Kingdom is £4 million greater, in respect of Northern Ireland allocations.

NUCLEAR REACTOR POLICY

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Eric G. Varley): With permission, Mr. Speaker I wish to make a statement.
The Government have decided that the electricity boards should adopt the steam generating heavy water reactor for their next nuclear power station orders.
In the Government's judgment the SGHWR will provide power reliably and we can proceed to order it quickly. The Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations advises that there should be no fundamental difficulties in giving SGHWR safety clearance. SGHWR offers particular scope for British nuclear technology and we should exploit it. The 100 megawatt prototype at Winfrith has now been operating successfully for six years and is designed to reproduce the operating conditions of a commercial unit.
It is for these reasons that the Government believe SGHWR is the right system for the United Kingdom to pursue. Since we shall be moving forward from a prototype to a commercial size and design, it seems sensible to start with reactor units of 600–660 MW rather than

a larger size so as to reduce the problems of scaling-up, and also for the initial programme to be relatively modest—not more than 4,000 MW over the next four years. We are asking the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Scottish boards to set preparatory work in hand jointly. A first order will be placed as soon as possible.
After the initial programme the aim should be to build up orders as rapidly as progress allows. The initial orders will provide a sound base for industrial development for the future.
Both the British and Canadian Governments see great advantage in full cooperation on heavy water pressure tube systems. United Kingdom nuclear organisations and the electricity boards will start discussing co-operation, with their Canadian counterparts immediately.
Our first commitment to the future must be the success of SGHWR. As to other systems, the Government have accepted that a major new programme of Magnox, depite its generally good operation. would not be sensible. While it is essential to complete the advanced gas-cooled reactor programme satisfactorily, it would be unwise to place further AGR orders until we have successful operating experience.
The high temperature reactor has considerable potential and I am asking the nuclear organisations to pursue further the propects of participating in its international development, in which our experience of gas-cooled technology will be of great value. But HTR is not suitable for the electricity board's main programmes at this time, nor do we have the resources for an immediate demonstration order while we are launching SGHWR.
The Government have decided against any commitment to the light water reactor but have asked the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to carry through to conclusions its examination of the generic safety issues.
The Government will maintain our effort on the fast reactor on which we are in the forefront of technology. I am asking the nuclear organisations to urgently pursue the prospects for further international co-operation, covering development and the start of commercial ordering.
The present programme of SGHWR will dictate the pattern of nuclear and fossil plant ordering over the next three to four years. We shall take decisions on the capital investment for new fossil stations progressively, depending on load growth. We are fortunately placed with major fossil reserves.
In the later 1970s our nuclear options should widen. We should in particular be able to step up the SGHWR programme, given satisfactory initial experience of construction. We shall keep a close watch on the environmental implications of nuclear power, on siting and on the management of radioactive waste.
Owing to the printing dispute. I am making available a limited number of typed copies of the Government's Paper. I shall shortly publish the advice of the Nuclear Power Advisory Board. I am most grateful to the members for the time and effort they have given.
Discussions on reactor policy have been prolonged, but the period of uncertainty is now over. The Government's decision offers the prospect of a further—publicly acceptable—development of nuclear power in the United Kingdom, and I shall now discuss its detailed implementation with the electricity boards and the nuclear industry. It is important that all concerned should work together to make a success of our nuclear programme. They have assured me that they will do so.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: This announcement must be one of the most crucial Government decisions about advanced technology which the House has heard for a good many years. I sincerely hope that the decision which the Secretary of State has announced today will prove to be successful and that it will not run into the kind of difficulties which beset the advanced gas-cooled reactor programme launched nine years ago. As it is an extremely crucial decision, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me while I put a number of questions to him.
I am sure the House would be wise to await the report of the Nuclear Power Advisory Board before coming to any final conclusions. Will copies of the report be made available in typescript

at as early an opportunity as possible so that hon. Members may see what advice the right hon. Gentleman has had? He has announced a programme for 4,000 MW over four years. Is he aware that this is very different from the 3,000 MW a year which he indicated in the debate on 2nd May would be the minimum programme of nuclear ordering over the next two years? Does not this amount to little more than a pilot programme? How long will it be before we can embark on a large-scale series—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister may say "Oh!", but it is one-third of the size of the programme which the right hon. Gentleman said would be appropriate as recently as May.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): How long has the right hon. Gentleman taken?

Mr. Jenkin: Does that mean that while other countries are going right ahead to reduce their dependence on coal and oil we will have to continue for some years more with a fossil fuel programme? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what will be the cost to the British electricity consumer and what will be the cost to the balance of payments of such a policy during the 1980s?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nuclear power is now nearly 50 per cent. cheaper than power produced by fossil fuel? Is he further aware that for every 3,000 MW of demand met by nuclear rather than fossil fuel the consumer will be saved about £100 million a year throughout the 1980s? Does his decision mean that during the 1980s consumers will have electricity bills that are 20 per cent. or even 25 per cent. higher than they would have been if he had been able to go for a programme of the size which he indicated was the minimum when he addressed the House on 2nd May?
We are going for a programme of heavy water reactors. What proposals do the Government have for the installation of capacity to produce heavy water? It may be that this pilot programme can be supplied from Canadian heavy water plants, but sooner or later we will have to meet capacity ourselves. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us something about that?
There has been some suggestion in the Press that there might be a reconstruction of the National Nuclear Corporation. Will the right hon. Gentleman explore with the industry which other companies might like to participate in the NNC before he decides to expand the public sector?
I am sure that the House will want to debate this important decision. Is the Secretary of State aware that I hope it will be regarded as being of sufficient importance not to be relegated to a 90-minute debate on the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Order which is at present before the House?

Mr. Varley: I am not sure whether the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) welcomes our decision. The fact is that the Government to which he belonged postponed making a decision for more than two years. The present Government have come to a decision within four months of taking office. I believe that it is a decision broadly acceptable to the House and to the country.
As to the right hon. Gentleman's detailed questions, the report of the Nuclear Power Advisory Board is practically complete. During the debate on nuclear reactor choice I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) whether the report would be made public. It will be made public and I hope that it will be published within the next few days, certainly before the end of the month.
On the question of the size of the programme. we think that 4,000 MW of SGHWR capacity is about right, but I hope that by 1977–78 it will be possible to take stock of the situation to see how the ordering and the design are coming along and to consider the matter in that light.
The decision I have announced has implications for our fossil fuel power station programme, but to have gone to the sort of figures I indicated in the debate—not my figures but those of the Central Electricity Generating Board—would have meant that the Government were committed in advance on the safety clearance of pressure water reactors, and I do not think that that would have been acceptable. There are cost implications, but these are highly speculative and they

are meaningless because neither an SGHWR nor a PWR has been built in Britain.
On the question of heavy water, in the early stages we shall have to collaborate with the Canadians. We shall enter into negotiations with the Canadian Atomic Energy Authority about securing the heavy water that we require, but eventually—with the success of SGHWR—I hope that we shall have our own heavy water plant.
We shall consider further the structure of the National Nuclear Corporation. I am not giving away secrets when I tell the House that the Chairman of the National Nuclear Corporation was not in favour of SGHWR, but he has put out a statement in which he says:
The National Nuclear Corporation, including myself, will now turn their full energies to the design and production of SGHWR.
That is a realistic and constructive attitude for Lord Aldington to take.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will realise the difficulty of the Chair. We have a great deal of business to do today. We cannot debate the statement now, but for a limited time I will allow short and sharp questions.

Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will congratulate him on his courage in making this difficult but sound decision against much opposition and on his wisdom in adopting the views of the Select Committee? Is there hope of a sound and comprehensive agreement with the Canadians fairly soon, since this would give great confidence all round and be of tremendous assistance in world markets?

Mr. Varley: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. We believe that realistic co-operation with the Canadians is possible. Informal talks have already taken place and we hope to firm them up in the weeks ahead.

Mr. Neave: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great many people in industry will applaud him for having the courage of his convictions and for giving British heavy engineering the opportunity that it has been waiting for to get on with the nuclear job? Will he hold talks


with the Canadians at ministerial level as soon as possible?

Mr. Varley: Certainly I want to talk to my Canadian opposite number, but a good deal of the detailed discussions will take place, and have already taken place, with officials. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this announcement should be regarded as a great boost for British technology and British engineering, and I am sure that the opportunity will be seized.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Secretary of State aware that at first sight it might seem sensible to embark upon a fairly moderate programme at this stage? What is the estimated capital cost of the programme, and what is the estimated cost of the electricity generated?

Mr. Varley: The actual cost is highly speculative, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to wait until the publication of the Nuclear Power Advisory Board's report which I hope will come out within the next few days. The cost is speculative in the sense that neither the SGHWR nor the system preferred by the CEGB has been built in Britain. I do not think that there is a great cost difference, but there are cost differences when one compares nuclear reactors with fossil fuel reactors. If we can move quickly to series ordering for SGHW—I said that we hope to take stock of the situation by 1977–78—there could be real savings.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people will recognise that he has been faced with a difficult decision? He has decided to stay with British technology, and this will be a boost to the morale of British scientists and technologists. It is most important that my right hon. Friend should have decided upon a limited programme—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member coming to a question?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Is the Secretary of State aware that there are two question marks about his decision? One is that we have not yet built a commercial-scale SGHWR—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question marks are not enough. The hon. Member must

put what he wants to say in interrogative form.

Dr. Cunningham: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have not yet built a commercial-scale SGHWR in this country and that our dependence upon Canadian supplies of heavy water may turn out to be a disadvantage?

Mr. Varley: I am not sure that I wholly accept what my hon. Friend said about the Canadian situation and the supply of heavy water. I am confident that we can come to firm arrangements with the Canadians about heavy water. We do not have a commercial SGHWR operating in Britain but, as my hon. Friend knows, Winfrith has a 100-MW prototype that has operated successfully for six years, and I am confident that it can be scaled up to the size I outlined in my statement.

Mr. Skeet: Is the Secretary of State aware that the CEGB may require six major modifications of the SGHWR? In that case, shall we not be faced with all the teething problems that we experienced with the AGR? Bearing in mind that France, Western Germany, the rest of Western Europe, Japan and the United States have all gone down the road of light water reactors, how has the hon. Gentleman come to the conclusion that he has reached and remained unconvinced by world experience?

Mr. Varley: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman cannot back British technology, which is what he is implying. We came to our conclusion on SGHWR on the basis of reliability. We think that we can have a reliable system with SGHWR. One of our other conditions was public acceptability, and I think that SGHWR will be publicly acceptable to Britain. There is also the question of giving a boost to British technology. As to PWR, I know that the hon. Gentleman would have preferred that choice.

Mr. Skeet: Light water.

Mr. Varley: There are two versions of the light water reactor. The hon. Gentleman is assuming that the light water reactor would have received immediate safety clearance, but the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate said that it needed two


years to consider the matter before coming to a conclusion.

Mr. Hardy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement deserves to be greeted with considerable satisfaction, not least because he has maintained British nuclear technology despite the considerable and often ill-based pressure which appears to have half-persuaded the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin)? Will my right hon. Friend make clear that there is no ground for concern about the adequacy of the supply of heavy water? Will he also say a word about his idea of the future composition of the National Nuclear Corporation.

Mr. Varley: I do not doubt that we shall have the ability to get a firm arrangement with the Canadians in the initial stages on heavy water. As the programme builds up, I hope that we can have our own heavy water plant. As for the National Nuclear Corporation, we shall be looking at this matter carefully. It is clear that Sir Arnold Weinstock of the GEC would like to reduce its shareholding, but there might be others who will want to take it up. We shall consider the matter further.

Mr. Hannam: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the programme represents a sharp reduction in our nuclear power programme and will lead to extra costs of electricity in the years to come? Has he considered a mixed programme including the SGHWR and light water reactors?

Mr. Varley: No. So far as the Government are concerned it is a firm commitment and a straight commitment to go for the SGHWR. The hon. Gentleman will see that in paragraph 14 of our report we say that we have asked the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to carry through to conclusions the assessment of the generic safety of the PWR. This it will do.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British public, as distinct from some Members of the House, will welcome the high priority he has given to safety as against price? Is he further aware that because this field is still so uncharted, this modest beginning is sensible? When he has discussions with the CEGB about the placing of the

contract for four or five heavy water nuclear stations, will he bear in mind the problems of the heavy electrical engineering industry, particularly in development areas, and see whether any orders can go to those areas?

Mr. Varley: Certainly the decision we have announced will be welcomed by some engineering interests associated with power station development. I am sure that there are some within my right hon. Friend's constituency or region who will welcome the decision, even the modest start to this programme—a programme which, as I have already indicated, I hope can be built up later.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his decision will cause considerable dismay in an important sector of the British nuclear power industry, including British Nuclear Design and Construction and the GEC Reactor Corporation in my constituency? Does he know whether the hyper-cautious Swiss have given the light water reactor and the PWR safety clearance? Will he confirm that he is throwing away great export opportunities in respect of the light water reactor, particularly in conjunction with the French, and is saddling us with a large import burden in obtaining heavy water from the Canadians? Will he confirm that he has thrown over the advice not merely of the CEGB and the Chairman of the National Nuclear Corporation but also of Lord Rothschild's "think-tank" after an objective study of the problem?

Mr. Varley: It is not customary for Government spokesmen to comment on the advice that Governments receive from the Central Policy Review Staff. I do not think I can go any further than that. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are many people who are just as passionate in their advocacy of the SGHWR as he is in favour of the LWR. That goes for the Scottish Board, Lord Hinton. the Select Committee, the Institution of Professional Civil Servants and many other who have a great deal of knowledge of these matters.

Mr. David Stoddart: May I join in congratulations to my right hon. Friend since he has made an eminently sensible decision that will be welcomed by all the people in industry, including working people? May I ask him two questions?


First, will he make sure that the export potential of the SGHWR will not be ignored? Second, does the decision to have a slower programme reflect an investigation into the absurd projections of demand made by the CEGB?

Mr. Varley: On the question of demand by those in the electricity industry, my hon. Friend will see that our forecasts and estimates are set out in the Nuclear Power Advisory Board's report. As for the question of exports, the primary consideration in coming to this decision was to have a reactor which would provide power reliably for Britain. I believe that as the SGHWR is built up there will be an export potential.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Will the Secretary of State recognise that until we see the report of the Nuclear Power Advisory Board it will be difficult for hon. Members to form an opinion? Will he confirm that his decision was contrary to the choice of both the CEGB and the National Nuclear Corporation? Will he also undertake to make a further statement on the supply of heavy water, which is a matter of concern on both sides of the House?

Mr. Varley: If a statement is necessary on that aspect of heavy water supply, I shall come to the House and make it. But, as I have already said on two or three occasions, we are satisfied that we can have an arrangement for this programme which will be satisfactory. In respect of the Nuclear Power Advisory Board, it was clear that they, the CEGB and the National Nuclear Corporation would have preferred to go for the LWR. To that extent their advice has been rejected, but I have been told by Lord Aldington and by the chairman of the CEGB that now that the Government have made up their minds on reactor choice, they will back us and make a success of it. I certainly hope that this will happen. I have by no means rejected the unanimous advice of the Nuclear Power Advisory Board because it was impossible to get a unanimous decision out of it. As a result of my meeting yesterday, I think the balance of opinion from the NPAB is in favour of the Government's decision.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us are pleased at the decision and also at the rational and convincing methods used by my right hon. Friend in arriving at the decision over the past few months—which is a change from the sort of situation we have had in the past 10 years in terms of technological decision-making? Apart from the heavy water aspect, what else is included in the co-operation package with the Canadians? Some of us think it wise that we are going first for 660 megawatts and not into the uncharted territory of bigger stations.

Mr. Varley: Certainly it is prudent at this stage not to go straight from a 100 megawatt prototype at Winfrith up to 1300 megawatts. We should make a success of the 600–660 megawatt-type first. As for further industrial collaboration with the Canadians, I think that there is scope in this direction and it is a matter which we shall be discussing.

Mr. Churchill: Is the Secretary of State aware of the disappointment among those who work in heavy electrical industry at Trafford Park in the Greater Manchester area at the Government's decision to proceed with a programme only one-third of the size which the CEGB thought desirable? Will he confirm that the full programme suggested by the CEGB was unacceptable to the National Union of Mineworkers?

Mr. Varley: I do not know what connection that supplementary question has with the matter under discussion. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take me to one side and explain precisely what he means. As for Trafford Park and the GEC, I have already said that Sir Arnold Weinstock said that he wants to back the decision and make a success of it now. I am confident that he means what he says.

Mr. Swain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the Labour Government came into office we have had statements about the mining industry, the oil industry and now about the nuclear industry? When will he, in the interest of hon. Members and the general public produce a White Paper setting out where each of the main energy-producing industries will fit into the energy needs of the nation by 1980?

Mr. Varley: I want in the years ahead to produce as much information as possible for the House about energy and energy policy. I believe that the 1980 perspective is still a good one. By 1980 in terms of value Britain should be self-sufficient in energy. We have to make the most of it and make sure that we use that opportunity in general economic terms

Mr. John Davies: Although I congratulate the Secretary of State on an act of courage which I am sure he realises is also an act of faith, may I ask him for one assurance? He said that he intended to proceed to a measure of international collaboration in terms of the high temperature reactor. Does he intend to do the same in terms of the fast breeder reactor, where there are great rewards available to us from international cooperation, especially in Europe?

Mr. Varley: Yes, Sir. It will certainly be possible to look for further collaborative efforts with the fast breeder reactor and the HTR. As to the right hon. Gentleman's first comment about my decision being an act of faith, there was of course a risk involved, no matter what course the Government had taken. But I am sure that the SGHWR is the right system for Britain. I know that the majority of British industry will welcome it and will want to back it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed more than half an hour for questions on the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I am afraid that we must move on now. However, I assure hon. Members who have not had an opportunity to put questions to the Minister that, if there is a debate in due course, it may be that they will have preferential treatment.

Mr. Evelyn King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw attention to the fact that the whole of the research for this project has been developed in my constituency by a devoted team over the past 10 years? Might not the House spare one moment to pay tribute to the immense value of their work?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member of Dorset, South (Mr. King), in an irregular manner, has made his point.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. You suggested that a number of hon. Members had not had a chance to catch your eye in this exchange on the ground that there would be a debate. We have not been given any undertaking that there will be a debate.

Mr. Speaker: I said "If".

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (PRINTING)

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Robert Sheldon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
The supply of Government papers to Parliament and members of the public is still being affected by the industrial action of members of the National Graphical Association in Her Majesty's Stationery Office's printing works in support of a claim for improved pay and conditions.
HMSO has sought the assistance of the conciliation services of the Department of Employment to try to resolve the issue, but despite meetings with the officials of the National Graphical Association no settlement has been reached. The NGA members, who represent about 40 per cent. of the staff of the Parliamentary Press, have now imposed a stoppage until midnight tomorrow.
Copies of the documents essential to the business of the House will continue to be made available, in limited quantities, in one form or another.
Members may also wish to note that, to assist those outside the House specially interested in the Finance Bill, a limited number of copies will be available at the Treasury on the basis of one or two copies per caller.

Mr. Prior: Is the Minister aware that I have only just received a copy of his statement? I do not know whether that is due to the printing dispute. What is the reason for this industrial action? Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the cause of it? Can he also say what extra efforts can be made to ensure that copies of the documents which are available, as he says, in one form or another are improved? If the hon. Gentleman cares to look, for example, at the copy of the Rent Bill which is now available, he will see the reason for my question. It is in a


form which is fairly impossible to decipher.
This is a great inconvenience to the House. It is the kind of inconvenience to which industry and commerce have been subjected for a long time, and this House is now having to put up with it as well. Month after month and year after year, we as a nation are getting these problems. It is time that the nation as a whole took a grip on itself and surmounted them.

Mr. Sheldon: I must apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for the lateness of his receipt of the statement. It was due to an effort to give to the House the latest information available and an attempt to give the fullest possible details that were available to me personally.
The right hon. Gentleman asks whether the form in which papers are being produced can be improved. Some improvement has taken place. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise some of the improvements which have been made in the production of the Order Paper as well as in producing the Finance Bill which came subsequent to some of the other Bills that were produced in this way.
I regret as much as anyone the inconvenience to the House. This is a matter which we have to deal with, as it had to be dealt with by the previous Government. We have tried to produce papers in the way best suited to hon. Members.
As for the cause of the dispute, as I said in my statement this is a dispute over the terms and conditions of the National Graphical Association by comparison with those alleged to have been received by members of the NGA in other parts of the London area in particular. It must be seen against the background of recent disputes in the printing industry generally, and especially in the area of London itself.

Mr. David Steel: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that this House has been very tolerant over these matters, both currently and in the past? Will he see whether an attempt can be made to improve the flow of certain documents which are not available at all? I understand that there are no reports available of meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee—even for the limited number of Scottish Members who would want them, assuming that they are not generally

required by the House. Are there individual matters in which limited quantities of documents might be made available?

Mr. Sheldon: In fact a wide range of documents is available. Concerning the specific items to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, the Housing (Scotland) Bill comes to mind a number of copies are available. If there are particular shortages that we have not been able to identify, we shall do our best to make sure that copies are available.
I want to pay tribute to the work both of the House and of those concerned in making sure that every arrangement which can be made is being made for the convenience of the House. There is a large amount of work involved. The process of getting documents right to the counter in the Members' Lobby is an immense task, and we should be grateful for the way it has been performed.

Mr. Cryer: Does not this dispute show that no government is possible without the consent and co-operation of working people? Will my hon. Friend comment on whether the situation is made better or worse by the fact that apparently this House is surviving on blackleg labour? Is he quite sure that this is not making the dispute worse?

Mr. Sheldon: All these essential papers to enable us to continue the business of the House from day to day are produced under the aegis of the House. This has been the practice in the past. We are not taking this work out of the control of the House, and this enables the work to proceed.
As for my hon. Friend's other comment, he is quite right. The dispute shows how democracy in this country works by consent. One of the problems which have arisen would have been much more readily solved if we were not living under the shadow of the pay policy of the previous administration.

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman said that we had to look at this dispute in the context of the London decisions on pay. Ought we not also to look at it in the context of the survival of parliamentary democracy? Should not this House recognise that whereas the Nazis were never able to stop the publication of parliamentary papers we are experiencing such a stoppage now and that it is not


possible for Parliament to continue for very long in these circumstances?

Mr. Sheldon: Naturally I regret as much as anyone in the House the interruption to the normal flow of papers. But it is not true to say that parliamentary democracy is being brought to a halt. The right hon. Gentleman exaggerates the position. We have available in one form or another all the essential papers required for our business from day to day. I think that that will continue to be the case.

Dr. M. S. Miller: In that connection, accepting that the House is under strain and that difficulties are involved, may I ask my hon. Friend to convey to the people engaged in producing those papers that they have our congratulations and thanks for the way in which they are producing them? We are not anything like as badly off as Opposition Members suggest.

Mr. Sheldon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for an opportunity to offer my congratulations to those people, some of whom are working as much as an 18-hour day, who have been responsible for the efforts to produce the papers of the House.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Ministers of whichever Government are in power make identical statements with depressing regularity about the printing situation, and that in all parts of the House we are getting rather tired of that situation? When will the hon. Gentleman tell us that he has plans for installing a printing works in our own premises?

Mr. Sheldon: It is a matter for the House and for you, Mr. Speaker, to make provisions of an alternative kind if necessary.

Mr. Rossi: The Minister has referred to the inconvenience to which Members are put. We are reaching the point at which it will be impossible for Members to do their work. I draw the Minister's attention particularly to the Bills with which I am concerned. The first is the Control of Pollution Bill [Lords] which has been out of Committee for almost two weeks. We have not seen one printed report of that Committee, but we shall

have reached the Report stage within a week. How can hon. Members possibly prepare for the Report stage without seeing the report of the Committee to ascertain the Minister's assurances and undertakings?
The Rent Bill [Lords] has reached us as a photostat copy with clauses marked and struck out, other clauses inserted, whole pages inserted but not numbered, and with lines unnumbered. How can hon. Members possibly find their way through a document of that kind in order to deal with the Bill at the Committee stage, which I understand the Government are anxious to bring on as quickly as possible? How can hon. Members consider that Bill in detail when they have had no opportunity of studying what the other place did with it during the Committee and Report stages, because the copies of those reports, too, are not generally available?

Mr. Sheldon: The reports of the second and third sittings of the Standing Committee on the Control of Pollution Bill are now available in the Vote Office. The third sitting was completed only last week and the report will shortly be available. I shall go into the question how soon this can be made available in the Vote Office for the use of Members.
Regarding the form in which some of the Bills have been presented, I regret as much as anyone else that documents have not appeared in the normal printed form to which we are accustomed. But hon. Members will see that the documents are perfectly legible. This matter can, of course, be debated.
I am grateful to those people who have made it possible for us to discuss these Bills.

Mr. Skinner: Would my hon. Friend agree that this is another example of the cant and hypocrisy of Members opposite, many of whom do not turn up for work half the week any way? Does the inconvenience suffered not pale into in significance in comparison with the inconvenience caused to millions of working people throughout this country a few months ago when the then Government put those people on a three-day working week?

Mr. Sheldon: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend concerning the relative scale of the inconvenience suffered by Parliament and the people of this country.
The other thing that might be said with some value is that the pay policy which produced the three-day week has also been a contributory factor to this debate.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Could we have an assurance that when the problem is over we shall receive printed copies quickly? There seems to be some doubt about that at the Vote Office. We shall all be patient if we know that we shall receive our copies eventually.
Would the Minister ask his ministerial colleagues, when replying to points and referring to dated copies, to give us some guidance? When one receives an enormous document one finds it very difficult to discover the answer.
Lastly, is this not perhaps an example of the over-centralisation of printing? Would the Minister consider that a solution might be to spread the work around so that we are never dependent on one industrial area?

Mr. Sheldon: If the hon. Lady is concerned that work should be done out of London, then she has a great supporter in the present Government who are anxiously pursuing this aim in the more general sense.
I am happy to give an assurance that the OFFICIAL REPORT and other essential Parliamentary papers will be printed when the dispute ends.
The hon. Lady asked for further details to be given so that Members could find their way about the documents and some of the papers being produced. I will go into that suggestion and consider what might be done.

Mr. Goodhew: When the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, spoke just now he suggested that it was a question for you, Mr. Speaker, whether there should be any change in the arrangements for the printing of our papers such as the installation of a printing press here. Could you enlighten hon. Members whether they have the power to ask you to do that or whether it is the responsibility of the Government?

Mr. Speaker: I think hon. Members have the power to ask me to do anything. Whether I would answer the question is another matter. I am, of course, prepared to take advice from the usual channels and the Services Committee, on the work of the House. But I would take no action such as proposed unless it had the authority of the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Statutory Instruments).
That the draft Agricultural Lime Scheme (Extension of Period) Order 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Pendry.]
That the Hop Gardens (Replanting and Restructuring) Scheme 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Pendry.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

RIGHTS OF WORKERS AGAINST ARBITRARY EXCLUSION FROM TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP.

(1) Subject to the provisions of the Section every worker shall have the right not to be—
(a) excluded from membership;
(b) expelled from membership
of a trade union or a branch or section of a trade union by way of arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination.

(2) The exclusion or explusion of a worker from membership of a union, branch or section shall not be deemed to be arbitrary or unreasonable if the worker is of a description different from that or those of the majority of the members of that union, branch or section (as the case may be) or does not possess the appropriate qualifications for such membership.

(3) A worker aggrieved by his exclusion or expulsion from any trade union, branch or section may apply to an industrial tribunal in accordance with industrial tribunal regulations for a declaration that he is entitled to be a member of that union, branch or section.

(4) Where any such declaration has been made and has not been implemented by the union, branch or section concerned within any period specified in the declaration or if no such period is specified within a reasonable period, the worker may apply to the High Court or in Scotland the Court of Session for an injunction, interdict or such other relief (including compensation) as the Court may think just and expedient in all the circumstances of the case.—[Mr. Hayhoe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: It would be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time new Clause 5—[Rights of workers in respect of trade union membership.]

Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful for your guidance on that point, Mr. Speaker.
Apart from the broader comments made about the availability of the various papers and the efforts made to produce the papers we require for this Report stage, may I say how grateful we are for the very considerable efforts made on Thursday and Friday of last week to have these documents available.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): I thank the hon. Gentleman for the statement he has made and express to him and his colleagues, and indeed to Mr. Speaker and the servants of the House, our deep regret about what has occurred. We think it constitutes a very serious difficulty for the House of Commons if papers are delayed in this manner and if special arrangements have to be made for their production. I apologise to everyone that that has occurred. We have done everything we can to deal with the situation.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. The Civil Service Department has worked very hard to overcome the difficulties. We do not regard the present situation as one that is satisfactory in any sense.

Mr. Hayhoe: One can but hope that this harmonious beginning to the debate will be carried through the whole of the Report stage. I suspect that it might not go quite that way.
The purpose of the new clause and of the other changes and amendments we hope to propose to the Bill is straightforward. Our intentions are to improve the Bill, to change it from something which was apparently drafted by the TUC for the TUC, in the interests of the TUC, into legislation which would be broadly acceptable to this House and to modern Labour, Liberal and Conservative opinion, and members and' nonmembers of unions.
There is a possibility open to us in Parliament during the next two days to put this legislation into a form which would be broadly acceptable to moderate opinion and which I hope the House will think it worth while attempting to achieve.
We made some progress in Committee. It would be wrong for me to go into detail about the changes that have already been made in the Bill. The form in which we have it demonstrates where the changes have occurred because they


are marked on our copies. By retaining the Code of Practice and by other changes the Bill has been improved. I hope that new clause 1 will commend itself to the House and will in its way improve the Bill still further.
The clause is concerned with safeguards for the individual against arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination involving either exclusion or expulsion from membership of a trade union. It would establish rights at law and provide a civil, not criminal, remedy if the decisions of industrial tribunals on questions of this kind were not carried through. Only if a decision or a declaration which an industrial tribunal made on a matter referred to it as a result of the provisions of the clause was ignored by the trade union concerned could an application be made to the High Court.
The importance of these safeguards is underlined and increased in the context of the closed shop. It is important in an absolute sense, but particularly when we consider it in the context of closed shops or, as a result of the Bill, where union membership agreements apply.
There is a great deal of common ground here. It is common ground between both sides of the House, I think, that such arbitrary action by trade unions is rare. It happens very seldom. Nevertheless, some safeguards are desirable.
The Secretary of State, in his statement on 22nd March when he outlined his proposals for the Bill, made it clear that he felt that in either this or a later Bill consideration was being given to providing safeguards against arbitrary exclusion or expulsion from union membership. Therefore, from the first moment the right hon. Gentleman at least referred to the need for or the importance of safeguards against such arbitrary action, even though I feel sure that at that time he recognised that it was rare for such action to have taken place in the past.
On Second Reading the Secretary of State again referred to this matter. On 7th May, referring to this as a matter of controversy which he thought was important, he said:
We thought that probably the best way to approach the matter was along the lines of the Donovan Report, which laid down a procedure for dealing with these questions which is perfectly feasible.

On the other hand, the General Council of the TUC takes the view strongly that other developments have taken place since the publication of the Donovan Report which have assisted the situation, and it has good arguments in support of that view. The TUC has taken steps to try to ensure that proper procedures are available to trade unionists and people generally who may be affected."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May 1974; Vol. 873, c. 231–2.]
The right hon. Gentleman gave a balanced statement at that time indicating that it was an important matter and that Donovan had suggested one way in which it might be dealt with, but that the TUC took a slightly different view and he was still considering the matter.
The Secretary of State's intentions on this matter seemed good. Therefore, it is surprising how bad has been the specific performance that flows from those good intentions.
When we debated the matter in Committee we had an indication by the Minister of State that the Government would consider the debate carefully and perhaps bring forward on Report some form of words to meet this point. However, we have had nothing on this matter. I suppose there is still hope that redemption may yet come to the Secretary of State and that in reply he, or his hon. Friend the Minister of State, will indicate that the clause is acceptable. I hope that he will, because that would be the best way to proceed.
The clause is not all that far away from what the Secretary of State was talking about on Second Reading when he referred to the Donovan approach to these matters which is set out at paragraph 612 of the report where the suggestion is made that an individual should have a
right of complaint to a new and independent review body. He should be entitled to ask that body for a declaration that, upon his undertaking to abide by the rules of the union affecting existing members, he should, notwithstanding any absolute discretion vested in the union or in any committee of the union, become and remain a member.
There was the idea of the matter being reviewed by some impartial body, that body being asked to give a declaration and, if that declaration was not followed by the union concerned, there being a civil remedy before the courts. Again, that is common ground as to what Donovan was recommending.
The clause suggests that we make use of the industrial tribunals which, under the unfair dismissal provisions of the 1971 Act and in this legislation, if it goes through in its present form, have to look at similar questions. We believe that the machinery of the industrial tribunals would be a good way of handling the matter.
I do not want to make too much of the reference to "In Place of Strife", but I am sure that the Secretary of State knows that we could find there the appropriate comment in favour of following the suggestion by Donovan of having safeguards for the individual against arbitrary action of this kind.
Having, I hope, carried the House with me so far on this point, may I now attempt to deal with the two major arguments that seem to be put forward against such action being taken in the Bill.
The first argument is that, because examples of arbitrary action are rare, there is no need to hurry to do anything about it or to delve into the matter at all. To some extent that was the argument adduced by the Minister of State in Committee when we talked about these matters. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) argued that if there were only one example there ought to be legislation to defend the rights of the individual. That argument seemed to commend itself to a substantial number of hon. Members in Committee. As I said, the first argument was that as it did not happen often there was no need to deal with it.
The second argument was that we should not worry about it in this Bill but should wait for the employment protection Bill as that would be the right place to deal with it.
On the first point, I should like to call in aid Professor Kahn-Freund who is a considerable expert on these matters. He was quoted as such by the Minister of State in Committee. I should like to refer to what Professor Kahn-Freund said in the Gaitskell Memorial Lecture of 1970. I am not sure whether, being the Gaitskell Memorial Lecture, it would altogether commend itself to the Secretary of State, but perhaps it would be a commendation to some of his hon. Friends.
4.30 p.m.
At any rate, I think that what he said at that time was important. He said—

and I am quoting from the Modern Law Review of May 1970 which gives the text of the lecture:
Misuse of trade union power is a rare phenomenon in this country, but it can occur and it does. The law, however, is concerned with the marginal cases. This is where empirical social scientists and lawyers so often fail to understand each other. The lawyer looks at the marginal case, and the empirical social scientist treats with contempt proposals to deal with anything which according to the statistics happens only rarely. But how often does it happen? 'But suppose it does happen!'—how often have I heard this dialogue and taken part in it? It is the possibility of a misuse of union power that is on my mind far more than its actuality—though, as I shall have to mention, actual cases are not missing. Most employers are conscientious in the treatment of employees with long employment records. This is no answer to a demand for legislation on unfair dismissals. Unions do not normally abuse their powers to refuse admission or to expel members. This is no answer to a plea for legislation on this matter either.
I believe Kahn-Freund makes the case as strongly as it needs to be made on the requirement that legislation there must be.
Turning now to the last leg of the argument—why do not we wait until the Employment Protection Bill?—the answer was provided by the Secretary of State himself because when he was asked why he had not introduced a one- or two-clause Bill to repeal the 1971 Act, his reply was that it would have meant that had he done so all the immunities and protections for the trade unions would have been removed and that, therefore, it would have been wrong for him to have a short trade union repeal Bill if it would have removed the immunities and protections from the unions as a result of its passage.
Surely, if that is borne in mind, we are entitled to ask the Secretary of State why he does not apply the same standards to the safeguards and protection of the individual? Why is he so concerned to protect the strong and so unwilling to protect the weak? Is this his kind of social justice—increasing the privileges, rights and immunities for the strong unions and the elimination of present safeguards for the individual in this context? That may be his concept of social justice. It certainly is not ours, and that is why we want this new clause.

Sir Raymond Gower: I hope the Secretary of State will look at this clause with a view to accepting it. The


case has been stated in very moderate terms by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe). I believe the Secretary of State will recognise that it is basically a very moderate proposal. I should like to describe it as one based on natural justice.
My hon. Friend has quite rightly stressed that the cases which occur may be relatively few, but I would plead with the Secretary of State and his colleagues that whenever there is an organisation of human beings there is likely to be the occasional case. I imagine few of us in our experience as constituency representatives have not come across a single case. Certainly, I have in my own experience. Whereas such cases may be relatively few, I would emphasise to the Secretary of State that if by some ill-fortune a person is wrongly expelled from, or wrongly refused inclusion in, the membership of a trade union which is appropriate to his employment, the consequences to that individual can be very serious.
In most cases of this kind exclusion of people from the appropriate union means exclusion from the only kind of employment for which they have had any training, or the only kind of employment for which they have acquired any skill. So if by any chance this kind of thing happens, even in occasional cases, any individual affected is virtually excluded from the only place in which he can make a reasonable living commensurate with his skill and training. It is in that respect that I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to include this very reasonable, restrained and moderate proposal in this Bill.
The objectives of the Liberal new clause which is being taken with this new clause are roughly the same although their approach is rather different. They, too, have the same basic objective, and I would plead that it is one of natural justice. I fear that some of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues sometimes treat with tremendous suspicion anything relating to trade union legislation which does not come from their own proposals. But by no stretch of the imagination can anybody on the other side interpret this proposal as having been designed to inflict any ill on trade unionism.
My hon. Friend quite rightly contrasted the strength of some of the larger unions with the weakness of the individual. I recognise that many who have grown up on the labour side in industry, in the Labour Party and the trade union movement have, perhaps quite understandably, always thought of the importance of combination and have sometimes set that above the right of the individual. I understand the reasons.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Eric Heffer): Otherwise there would be no rights of the individual.

Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. Gentleman says there would be no rights of the individual if there were no rights of combination. But I would say that the right of combination if totally unfettered can destroy the right of the individual. We are seeking nothing to harm the right of combination, nothing to damage the right of trade unions to do the job for which they were designed. We are seeking merely to ensure that when there appears to be a case of perhaps irresponsible or unreasonable exclusion or expulsion, members of each trade union should have this right of an independent examination of the case.
Surely the hon. Gentleman is always pleading for justice for those who are wronged; and the right hon. Gentleman has had a very honourable career, in this respect, pleading the cases of individuals who have been wronged by authority, by the State or by big organisations. I should have thought that this would particularly appeal to him in that context, and it is in that spirit that I hope the Minister will accept this new clause.

Mr. Leon Brittan: The 1971 Industrial Relations Act sought to provide certain remedies for certain industrial ills. Unfortunately, the institutions created by that Act proved to be unacceptable to large sections of the community and in particular the trade union movement. But the fact that those provisions proved unacceptable does not mean that the ills have ceased to exist nor does it absolve us from providing alternative methods of dealing with those ills. This clause simply seeks to provide an alternative way of dealing with an ill which it is accepted is limited in extent but is none the less real, and it is important and necessary that we solve


it if we are to have fairness as well as order in our industrial relations today. Indeed, if the trade union movement is to have the increasing importance in our national life that Labour Members would wish, it is all the more important to protect individuals from arbitrary and un fair exclusions and expulsions. If the closed shop which the Labour Party and the Bill support is to grow, even more does it become important to have such protection.
Many of us will have had representations from people in the newspaper industry about aspects of the Bill. The way in which unfairness can operate is illustrated by the case of the Middlesbrough Evening Gazette, on which the editor, who was a member of the National Union of Journalists, was fined £50 and four senior executives were expelled from membership of the unions because they sought to bring out the paper during an official strike. Everyone concerned with that industry knows that all editors and executives regard it as their over-riding professional requirement—a matter Of professional etiquette almost—to bring the paper out. The case is under review by the internal procedures of the NUJ, but the fact that it could occur shows how desperately individuals need to be protected when the closed shop may become increasingly possible and how necessary it is to preserve not only individual rights but the freedom of the Press.
No one is exaggerating the extent of the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth certainly did not. But it does exist. It has been recognised by Donovan and by the Secretary of State. The Minister of State recognised it in Committee when he said:
We are, therefore, already looking into this problem with a view to dealing with it in the Employment Protection Bill. If we can find the right form of words for the Employment Protection Bill before we get to the end of this one, it would only be proper, in the light of the assurances I have already given, that we should try to bring them forward on Report."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E; 23rd May 1974, c. 212.]
So far, there has been no sign of anything coming forward. It is unacceptable that the Bill should leave this House without this kind of protection for the individual, so it is incumbent on the Opposition to

bring forward a reasonable solution to a problem which even the Government admit to exist. It simply will not do to ask us to wait for the next Bill if only because in the interim some people may be unfairly excluded or expelled. They would have no redress unless provision were made in this Bill.
If the principle is accepted, the question then arises—is the solution in the new clause reasonable? I think it is. Labour Members who will be familiar with some alternative proposals made in Committee will know that these proposals involve the minimum control of the conduct of unions compatible with the protection which we say is necessary. Labour Members and unionists abhor above all else detailed intervention in the affairs of unions and detailed instructions on how those affairs should be conducted.
4.45 p.m.
It will be observed that no such intervention is proposed in the new clause, which is phrased entirely negatively. Unions can organise their own business in their own way and there will be intervention only if their procedures, which can be as varied as they are today, amount in a particular case to arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination.
It will be the industrial tribunal which decides whether there has been arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination. I hope that with the passage of this Bill the discrimination against such tribunals by the trade union movement will cease and that once again unionists will be members of them. They will be familiar and sympathetic with the practices of trade unions and will not rush to the conclusion that there has been unfairness or arbitrary behaviour. They will recognise that the first task of an aggrieved individual is to exhaust the procedures provided by the union movement itself. If the TUC succeeds in its efforts to revise the rules of unions to make it less likely that there will be such discrimination—efforts to which the Minister referred in Committee—the scope for applications to the tribunals will be few and anyone who makes one without exhausting the prescribed procedures will fail in his application.
The determining body will be a tribunal which should be sympathetic to the


genuine aspirations and legitimate procedures of the movement. What is proposed is in line with Donovan, with common sense and with reason. It is a rational and moderate solution to a limited but real problem and should have the assent of the House.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I am sure that we accept that no hon. Member and no party has all the answers to the problems of industrial relations or union legislation. I have therefore tried to meet the spirit of the Bill by agreeing entirely that the 1971 Act should be repealed, while trying to ensure that this Bill contained adequate safeguards for the individual. That was my whole approach in Committee—that the spirit of the Bill is right but some parts of it may require tidying and trimming to do the job that little bit better.
This provision falls into that category. I am advised that it will be possible to have a separate Division on new Clause 5 if the Chair agrees. I understand that if I smile kindly at the occupant of the Chair, he may so agree. The difference between new Clause 5 and new Clause 1 is simple but important. New Clause 5 is an attempt to deal with criticisms that the Minister of State made of my amendment in Committee. One was as follows:
Therefore, my first argument against these amendments is a general one, namely, that they attempt to impose over the generality of organised working conditions a situation which is based heavily upon the closed shop."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E;23rd May 1974, c. 195–6.]
I have attempted, therefore, to devise a new clause that deals only with the closed shop situation. I very much hope that in those circumstances the Government will find it possible to accept new Clause 5, about which I and my colleagues feel extremely strongly. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that the cases are few and are declining in number. If one case exists the law ought to be capable of protecting that individual.
The House will understand that it is a major concession on the part of the Liberal Party that it will accept the closed shop principle. It is something foreign to the basic philosophy of Liberalism. But we are prepared to accept that situation in order to get agreement on legis

lation required in relation to trade unions and industry.
It is surely not unreasonable, however, to ask the Government to accept equally that there must be some concession from their side within that sort of situation. The concession that I ask them to make—which may be truly a concession in view of their party dogma; I say that kindly—is simply that if we accept the closed shop situation, which we shall, in return they should say that in that situation they will protect the individual to the extent that he has a legal right to belong to a trade union, provided that he complies with the rules of the union and the necessities required by the union in regard to basic membership.
That is all that new Clause 5 is saying as I interpret it and intended it. I hope that the Government will accept it.
New Clause 1 goes much further than new Clause 5, because new Clause 1 applies the situation to everyone. Clearly, as a Liberal, for me that is the ideal situation, which I should like. But if the Government will concede and accept new Clause 5, I would take that as evidence of a spirit of compromise, accept the situation, and say that we are happy to have gone at least some way along the road. But if the Government are unable to concede new Clause 5, the logic of the situation leads me to conclude that if we cannot have half the cake we might as well go for all of it. In that case, I would find myself, with my colleagues, voting for new Clause 1. If that were carried, we could withdraw new Clause 5. If it failed, we could still, with the permission of the Chair, press a vote on new Clause 5.
I hope that the Minister will find it possible to accept new Clause 5 in the spirit of compromise which is so desperately necessary in industrial relations.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Member for Brent-ford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) struck an extremely harmonious note at the beginning of the debate. He knows that it would be against my nature and interest to reply in anything other than that tone and, of course, I intend to observe that rule throughout all our proceedings. It comes quite naturally to me. Therefore, I am very glad to approach the whole question in the same constructive spirit that has been suggested, partly by


the hon. Gentleman and partly by the spokesman for the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cyril Smith). It may be that, as I proceed on these new clauses and other amendments, the keener Members of the House will be able to detect a difference in the ways that I suggest we should deal with our problems, but that does not make the slightest difference to the emollient spirit in which I approach the whole matter.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth referred to our references to the employment protection Bill. I shall say something further about that shortly, because it touches upon our argument on the whole of this matter. It certainly touches upon the new clauses. It also touches upon later amendments and discussions. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the decision to divide the way in which we had to deal with these industrial relations problems into two Bills was an important decision that we had to make.
Partly because of the parliamentary exigencies in this Parliament, we had to produce a much shorter Bill than might otherwise have been the case. Indeed, it had been part of our original intention, before the General Election, that we would have had a Bill which repealed the 1971 Act and carried through the purposes that we wished to achieve in that sense and, at the same time, proceed to establish the Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which we believe will play an extremely important part in the whole of our industrial relations and is part of our constructive approach to the whole problem. Therefore, one of the main features in the employment protection Bill will be the measures that are required to give statutory form to that service.
I hope, therefore, that hon. Members, whatever they may think about this Bill or the way in which we are proceeding with this matter, will not imagine that there is anything false or misleading in our suggestion that we regard the employment protection Bill as a proper place to deal with many of the problems that we think are left over from this Bill. That applies not only to problems which we have left over and have not dealt with in this Bill, which may be regarded as concessions to the trade unions—if that is the way to put it—but also to prob

lems which others have asked us not to proceed with in this Bill and which we have agreed should be left to the subsequent Bill, for which we shall have, perhaps, a longer time in the House to discuss matters.
Therefore, when I refer later to the employment protection Bill, in this or later debates, I hope that hon. Members will not think that it is any method of trying to pass the buck, to conceal the facts, or to escape from problems. This is a perfectly reputable procedure that we have followed because of the requirements of the case, and we believe that it is a sensible arrangement.
I say particularly to the hon. Member for Rochdale, who is interested in establishing a constructive approach to industrial relations, that we do not regard this Bill as one which deals with the whole range of these matters. That would have been impossible. We shall be here for a little while tonight. We may finish the whole Bill tonight or in a little more time this week. But if we attempted to deal with all these problems at once in this Parliament, in the time available, we could have been confronted with insoluble parliamentary problems.

Mr. Hayhoe: Will the Secretary of State address his mind to the particular point that he has framed this Bill in such a way that there is no break in the immunities and safeguards for the strong unions whereas there is a break in the protection and safeguards for weak individuals?

Mr. Foot: I do not think that is so. In any case, that would raise very controversial matters, which I am seeking to avoid. The hon. Gentleman talks of immunities and protections. It is not a question of immunities and protections only for the strong. It is immunities and protections in many cases for the weak, who have protections only because they are able to organise in trade unions. Whether they are big or small trade unions, they are the best protections for the weak in many circumstances. Whatever may be the differences between us on various aspects of the matter, everyone will agree that it would have been a complete nonsense for us to introduce a Bill which merely repealed the 1971 Act without dealing with the question of immunities and protections for the trade


unions generally. That would have made nonsense of the whole process, so that was not an option that was available to US.
I come to the new clauses. Certainly I do not deny that this question is important. I did not have to put it in perspective in that sense. The hon. Member for Brent-ford and Isleworth did so when he said that this matter applies only to a very small number of cases and that it is very rare that events occur which would invoke this kind of clause if it were to become law. That is perfectly true, but that does not mean that it is not important, and therefore, right from the beginning, as he correctly recited, the Government have said that they wish to deal with this problem and would deal with it either in this Bill or in the later Bill. I am not seeking to deny that this is a matter to which the House should apply its mind. That is what we are doing here on Report.
There are, however, deficiencies in the clause moved by the official Opposition and I shall briefly state what I think those deficiencies to be, not in order to exacerbate the argument, but just to ensure that it is understood what we feel about it. I do not need to recite the list of deficiencies fully because we went into these matters in detail in Committee
5.0 p.m.
First, we do not think that the clause is justified by the arguments of Donovan, because the clause covers a good deal more than Donovan was seeking to deal with by his remedy in such cases Donovan was dealing overwhelmingly, but not exclusively, with the closed-shop situation and he was seeking what he considered might be a remedy for this difficulty in such a situation. The Opposition clause goes further than that, however.
The second reason for not liking the clause is that it does not take full account of the procedures of the trade unions. I am not saying that it would be impossible for the clause to be operated at the same time that the trade unions operate their procedures for dealing with these matters, but the clause does not take proper account of the trade union procedures which deal exactly with this problem. We believe that to be an essential part of trying to secure a solution.
The clause also does not take proper account of the developments since Donovan and of the efforts which the trade unions have made to take account of the kind of criticisms or discussions that took place in Donovan on this subject. It was partly as a response to Donovan that the General Council of the TUC had discussions with the various member unions. There was a considerable exchange of opinion on the subject and, of course, many of the matters dealt with in the Liberal clause are covered by the procedures which the trade unions laid down for preserving the rights of members and for appeals.
Our principal objection, however, is that the remedy which is provided is unsatisfactory and could lead to difficulties. The whole idea of introducing the operation of injunctions could well exacerbate a situation which need not be exacerbated. It is therefore unwise to try to solve the problem by resorting to the same tribunals that deal with these other matters, and by the invocation of injunctions and the possibility of clashes of that nature. We do not believe that is the best way of dealing with it.

Sir Raymond Gower: The Secretary of State has made a fair point in saying that many unions try to do this in their general practice and therefore that the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) are not necessary. Does he take the same view about company law, that because most companies behave reasonably and try to do the right thing there is therefore no need for any company legislation?

Mr. Foot: I do not argue that my point is the complete answer to the question, but one of the three or four reasons why the clause is unsatisfactory is that it does not take sufficient account of the remedies which the unions operate and which they have been seeking to improve. My argument does not involve the implication the hon. Member is trying to place upon it. For those reasons, therefore, the clause moved by the official Opposition is deficient for dealing with what we have all agreed is a problem.
I agree that the clause in the name of the hon. Member for Rochdale is an improvement on that proposed by the official Opposition, if I may say that without offence in these coalition days. Not only


is the hon. Member's clause an improvement in that respect, but it is an improvement on what he proposed in Committee. I acknowledge that he has certainly sought to take account of the discussions we had then and to make two alterations. One of the alterations is to seek to make the clause apply only to a closed shop operation, although I do not think he has quite succeeded in that respect because parts of the clause apply while other parts do not. That is a minor deficiency.
There is another change, however, perhaps resulting from the criticisms which he encountered in Committee. Originally he proposed that any breach of the rules he was laying down should be dealt with by resort to the criminal court. I do not think that was what he intended. He has therefore removed from his clause the remedy or sanction of a reference to the criminal courts, but in so doing he has removed any sanction at all. He has emasculated the clause to such a degree that it has become almost entirely sexless. Now it would have no binding effect in any way whatever. He might suggest that in that case we should just let it go into the Bill. Of course, we could elaborate the Bill with a whole series of general declarations of biased aspirations. That is a possibility. That would fill out the Bill considerably, but that is clearly not the way to legislate.
I hope the hon. Member will take my reply as the response he was hoping for, and I agree that perhaps the best way of dealing with the matter would be to omit from the Bill completely any provisions to cover the point, and instead to incorporate some form of code of practice in the subsequent employment protection Bill. The hon. Member is in effect proposing that there should be a general statement of the ways in which certain matters should be dealt with without there being any legal sanction attached, and that is certainly one of the propositions that the Government will be glad to consider in seeking a remedy.
So, it would be a mistake for the House to incorporate the hon. Member's clause for the reasons I have stated, and the answer may well lie in a code of practice embodied in the later Bill.
Now I come to the way in which the Government have always—

Mr. Brittan: Would the Secretary of State accept that there is at least a possibility that the Liberal Party's clause in its statutory form, as opposed to any code of practice in which it might be incorporated, might be thought to provide some remedy in that if there is a clear statement in a statute that a member of a union shall be given this or shall not be given that, the courts might be prepared to intervene by giving injunctive relief if there has been a breach of statute?

Mr. Foot: If that were true it would be open to some of the objections I have stated, but it is not the case. If it were the case it would be an added reason not to include the clause and a reason why the Liberals should not press the matter.
We believe that the problem involved here is a genuine one. At one stage, and it is still not excluded, we thought that the best way to deal with it would be to devise a clause roughly on the basis of the Donovan recommendation—that is a clause dealing exclusively with the closed shop situation, to provide not an appeal to the courts in the normal manner, or an appeal to a tribunal, as recommended in the clause, or indeed any appeal as implied in the Liberal's remedy, but rather the establishment of a special review body for the purpose, At one time we thought that that might be the most feasible way to deal with the matter.
However, the General Council of the TUC has put forward objections which derive partly from its general objection to surveillance over its rules, which is a natural feeling. On the other hand, the General Council wishes to bring its rules as much as possible into conformity with the general recommendations in Donovan for dealing with this and many other matters. The General Council has taken a whole series of steps to try to achieve this.
I believe that a remedy for dealing with this situation which has general accord with the TUC is a much better remedy than one imposed upon it, even by Parliament, and that is what I have been seeking. If we had secured a remedy which the TUC believed was a satisfactory way to deal with it, we would have done our best to bring it forward


in the Bill, but we have not yet secured that remedy.
One way to achieve the objective might be not the remedy which I have mentioned of the adaptation of the Donovan recommendation, but a form of code of practice related to it which could be included in the employment protection Bill, particularly if such an arrangement were to be secured by understanding and agreement rather than by imposing a solution which the unions, or some of them, might not regard as the best way to go about it. This is not a question of refusing to take any course which the General Council of the TUC may not wish to take, but rather of seeking to provide the best remedy for the situation, and a remedy which will work. That is what we have been trying to secure. We have spent many hours in discussions with people concerned, including other Ministers, and I hope the House will think that we are making a sensible approach.
Hon. Members may ask what happens in the meantime, between now and the passage of the employment protection Bill, when we may have the conclusion of the kind of arrangement about which I have talked, whether in legislative form as suggested by Donovan, or in a code of practice, as suggested by the Liberal Party. It is conceivable that there may be some cases in which injustice is done and in which there would not be a remedy. I do not deny that, although it is not the case that there is no remedy available. Indeed, the remedy which is available, which has been available before and which trade unions and their members have used persistently over the years, is that of an appeal to the High Court against a breach of natural justice.
5.15 p.m.
Anyone who reads the history of trade unions, not just over recent years but over a longer period, cannot fail to be struck by the fact that the High Court has, quite properly in my humble judgment. a high reputation with the trade unions. Trade unions have fully accepted judgments of the High Court and indeed some of their problems have been solved there. Trade unions have taken the view that they do not want to interfere with that process, whereas the Donovan proposal, to some extent, would interfere

with it. That is one difficulty which must be considered if the Donovan proposal, in its present form, is to go ahead. It would in certain circumstances interfere with the appeal by certain members of trade unions to the High Court, and with the way that appeal may have been exercised in the past.
I do not want to say anything controversial, but one difficulty of the Industrial Relations Act 1971 is that we feel that the kind of court which it set up injured the reputation of the law among many trade unionists. I think I have put that as moderately as possible. However, the High Court would be there to deal with some of these cases with which we are concerned if they arose. That would be one protection not for the whole position, but a protection which prevailed previously, which was frequently used when there were injustices and which, as the history of trade unions has shown, helped to remedy those injustices.
I hope that the House will be prepared to accept what we have proposed as being a sensible way of proceeding. I hope it will be convenient and indeed attractive to hon. Gentlemen opposite to withdraw their clause so that we can proceed in the way I have suggested. [Interruption.] I do not know why that should not be regarded as agreeable. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) is laughing at the prospect of our agreeing on these matters so speedily. I am happy to keep the hon. and learned Gentleman in his usual buoyant mood.
I suggest that we could go ahead and have discussions and deal with the matter in the employment protection Bill as I have described.
I hope that the Liberal Party spokesman, whatever the official Opposition may decide, will understand that I have made a constructive response to his suggestion. I hope that he will not be tempted into voting for the Opposition's clause if they are so unwise as to press it to a Division. He would not be achieving what he wishes to secure—that is, an agreed understanding as to how we can deal with this problem in the best interests of the trade union movement generally and in the best interests of those rare individuals who may find themselves


clashing with the ways in which trade unions operate in this country.
I believe that what the Government are proposing is best not only in the interests of trade unionism but also in protecting individual liberty in this country.

Mr. Ray Mawby: The Secretary of State has again beguiled us, as he did so often in Committee with promises of what might appear in the employment protection Bill. When that Bill comes before the House it may well contain everything that he and the Minister of State have spoken about. The difficulty is that we have before us a Bill which is said to repeal the 1971 Act when it does nothing of the sort, because it immediately re-enacts about 26 of the sections of that Act. But, then, that is for Mr. Scanlon's information only.
The important point is that the Bill takes away any possibility of independent control of the rules of trade unions. When the Bill becomes an Act, therefore, we immediately return to a situation in which any trade union decides what its rules will be without any control or intervention by any other body. Right hon. and hon. Members on the Government benches may say "This is a perfect situation. Let us leave it to the trade unions to decide for themselves."
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the TUC's attitude. We all know that the TUC is a very responsible body that seeks to make certain that the trade unions are governed by the best possible conventions that can be found by agreement. The difficulty is that there are gaps, so that, with the best will in the world, the TUC does not have the necessary amount of control to make certain that the interests of the individual are properly looked after. That is the important matter with which we must be concerned.
Both the new clauses are concerned with the rights of the individual, and they are both reasonably worded. Under the controls of the 1971 Act there is an independent person who can at least make certain that a trade union conducts itself properly. Now he will go. All that is said in both clauses is that individual workers will be treated reasonably on the question whether they will be accepted as members, and on the method by which they may be expelled from membership.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) made it clear that as a result of the reply he received from the Secretary of State in Committee his clause confines itself to a closed shop situation. Therefore, he narrows the field in that he accepts, and I think the whole House will accept, that to be expelled from membership of a union can be much more damaging where there is a closed shop. In certain industries expulsion from a union means that a man may just as well throw away his tools and find another job in a different craft. Therefore, I can see the point the hon. Gentleman makes, that in the closed shop situation it is important that there should be some protection for the individual who seeks membership of a union and also a provision to prevent his being unfairly expelled.
In his intervention in this debate the Secretary of State said that the hon. Gentleman had proved that the clause would be impotent in its operation, that it only mouths a number of phrases with which most people would agree, but gets one nowhere. But, then, is not that Liberal policy generally? Therefore, we cannot complain about that.
Our clause is concerned with a new situation in which the Bill takes away any control by any outside body of a trade union in deciding what its rules shall be. Once that is done, it is important to have proper protection for the individual union member to make certain that only where he is properly found guilty of a breach of union rules may he be in danger of expulsion as a result of which he might even lose his livelihood.
In these matters one obviously cannot continue to talk just about cases that have happened. All that I have to do is to repeat my experiences in my union before 1971. In the pre-1971 situation a trade union could register with the Registrar of Friendly Societies purely by handing over a copy of its rules and from time to time notifying changes in those rules.
My union announced in public that it would make a big contribution to support those in Cyprus who were operating against our troops. I made a statement to the Daily Mail that I thought that was damaging to members of the unions whose sons were doing National Service in Cyprus. I was told that my case would be taken before the executive committee.


I could put forward my written defence, but I could not appear. I did not know who was charging me, and I could not cross-question those charging me. At the end of the day I was notified that the committee had heard my case in my absence, which was, apparently, quite normal under the union's rules. The committee had taken into consideration my written points and made a decision, and that was it. I was a Member of Parliament at the time, and I should not have been worried very much if I had been expelled rather than admonished, but many other union members could have been considerably damaged by expulsion and could have lost their livelihood.
That is a personal example of what can happen. It can happen now when by this Bill we are repealing the parts of the 1971 Act that at least made certain that an independent registrar could require that the rules of each union conformed to proper standards. We are repealing all that, and, therefore, I believe that the House would be failing the nation and every individual member of every trade union in the land if it did not pass new Clause 1.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am interrupting the business of the House so that the record may be corrected. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that earlier when the House was discussing the availability of papers for various Committees I asked the Minister of State, Civil Service Department about the availability of Standing Committee reports for the Control of Pollution Bill, making the point that it was impossible for Members interested in that Bill to prepare for Report.
The Minister informed the House that two reports of that Committee's proceedings had been published and were available for hon. Members. I found that statement rather strange because I, as a member of the Committee, had not up to that moment received the customary copies that members of Standing Committees receive. I did not wish to contradict the Minister, but I subsequently checked and found that there were no copies immediately available in the Vote Office.
I now find that two of the reports appeared in the Vote Office for the first time at five o'clock. Therefore, the statement which was made by the Minister earlier this afternoon was not correct. Further, the Bill as amended by the Committee, has not yet been printed and is not yet available so hon. Members do not know how the Bill has been amended by the Committee.

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it proper that we should have the proceedings of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill interrupted on a point of order that is concerned with another Bill? Of course, we appreciate the difficulties that have arisen for the hon. Gentleman and for other hon. Members, but there are times made available to the House when these matters should be raised. If a point of order of this nature is to be accepted it seems that a lot of our proceedings will become very disorderly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Before the debate continues I shall reply to the two points of order that have been raised. This is a rather irregular procedure but I allowed it because of the general difficulty which has arisen about the printing of papers. I do not wish this practice to become a general rule.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Robert Sheldon): The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) points out that he understood that copies of the proceedings in Committee of the Control of Pollution Bill were available for the House. It is true that they were available for the House but when I made my earlier statement they were not actually in the House. I regret that I was under the impression that transport would be more rapid than it was. The hon. Member for Hornsey must realise that the Vote Office cannot as easily cope with the large bulk of the present arrangements as it could if our papers were printed. Copies of the Committee proceedings of the Control of Pollution Bill were available for the House and they are now available in the Vote Office. I must apologise for any inconvenience that has been caused.

Mr. John Stanley: I shall comment on the three principal points of difficulty that the


Secretary of State has found with new Clause 1. I shall leave the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's comments on new Clause 5.
First, the Secretary of State said that he finds difficulty with new Clause I because it is drawn wider than the recommendations in the Donovan Report. I draw his attention to the considerable section in the Donovan Report from paragraph 619 onwards which devotes a considerable amount of the report to the consideration of safeguards which are necessary for the individuals outside a closed shop situation. Donovan does not recognise that injustices to the individual can take place only within a closed shop.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the significance of the new clause is in a closed shop situation. There is no great danger to a person's livelihood—for example, the threat of arbitrary dismissal—except in a closed shop situation. Therefore, the main burden of the new clause relates to a closed shop situation. It is somewhat flimsy to say that there can be significant objection to the new clause because it does not relate only to a closed shop situation. As I have said, that must be the burden of the new clause.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman has said that the new clause does not take sufficient account of existing procdures to deal with unfair practice against individuals that trade unions already possess. It is fairly evident—and completely evident from the new clause—that the existing procedures of trade unions are in no way precluded from operating by the adoption of the new clause. There would be no incompatibility with the existing procedures of trade unions arising from the adoption of new Clause 1 or new Clause 5. The main point that I put to the right hon. Gentleman is that as long as individuals rest solely and totally on the protection offered by procedures already adopted by trade unions, we are continuing a situation in which ultimately the trade unions themselves are judge and jury in their own case. That is a matter of principle that is undesirable and it is that point of principle that we are seeking to correct.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was undesirable in principle that there should be a reference in the new

clause to resort having to be made to injunctions. That is a fairly technical objection, not least because there can be recourse to an injunction only once it is clear that a trade union, within a given time, has not implemented a decision that has been made by an industrial tribunal. Effectively there is recourse to an injunction only when it is clear that a trade union will not abide by the resolution of the body set up by statute to arbitrate.
I suggest on all three counts that the right hon. Gentleman's objections to new Clause 1 and new Clause 5 seem to be flimsy. On the basic point of principle, we agreed in Standing Committee to enshrine in legislation the principle of the closed shop. By doing that we conferred on trade unions a major degree of authority and power over individuals where their livelihood is most acutely affected. By accepting the principle of the closed shop we give the trade unions the right to deny employment in a particular place of work to an individual and the right to deny continued employment in a particular place of work.
The right hon. Gentleman has already conceded that there could be circumstances—it is accepted that such circumstances would rarely arise—in which trade unions could operate unfairly, arbitrarily and unjustly. I put to the right hon. Gentleman that as long as he refuses to accept the new clause and as long as he concedes that injustice can occur, he is creating a situation in legislation in which somebody can be arbitrarily denied the right to gain admission to his place of work. That is a matter that this House cannot allow to continue to take place—even though it may take place in a minority of situations and even though it is highly improbable that such an event will take place.

Mr. John Peyton: I have long wondered about the magical powers possessed by the Dispatch Box. It does the most remarkable things for all kinds of people.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: And for you.

Mr. Peyton: I am so much obliged to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for his applause.
The Secretary of State is no exception. This afternoon we listened to him in a


strangely honeyed mood. Normally we are accustomed to listening to the right hon. Gentleman with some pleasure, but he usually employs more rasping tones than he saw fit to use this afternoon. However the change was welcome. I particularly welcomed the gracious and honeyed comments he made about our difficulties with parliamentary papers.
I never thought I would see the day when I complained about a shortage of paper in this place. I do so now only with the feeling that there is a slight element of hypocrisy in such protests. We must, at least, be partially grateful that the tide of paper by which we are normally inundated is slightly checked, even though it he the result of unwelcome circumstances. One Labour Member went a little far when he said that Parliament depended upon the consent of the ordinary working man. That is true, but Parliament depends upon the consent of all the people, not just one or two. It is a pity that our procedures should be upset.
I welcomed the gentle and gracious approach of the right hon. Gentleman who, uncharacteristically, avoided controversy and recognised that we are still dwelling in coalition days. The one thing on which he and I would agree most cordially—[Interruption.]—is that a coalition seems to be highly unlikely because there is very little to agree about. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman referred—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) wishes to interrupt me I hope that he will do so. His constant groaning from a sedentary position does him little credit and will only prolong any pain I may currently be causing him.

Mr. Russell Kerr: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I was directing a sedentary remark to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Peyton: I am certain that the hon. Member for Rochdale would be the last to feel himself in any way inconvenienced if the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston were to suggest that such communications were to go on outside the Chamber.
I was surprised and interested by the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the possibility of using the code of practice

device. If Parliament is to pass laws it had better do so quite clearly instead of casting a rather bogus fly over the water to see what happens. We should be capable of making up our minds without distributing codes of practice which simply add to the modern tide of advice which is already wide enough. I would have thought that by this time the House was sharply aware of the prospects which such advice could normally be expected to enjoy.
5.45 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman's main point was that the TUC objected to any surveillance of its affairs. That seems to be in strange contrast to the kind of treatment meted out to every other section of the community. One of the questions which bedevils—[Interruption.]—industrial relations is just what power the TUC has. Does it have the power to deliver things, to carry out promises—I am sorry. If the Secretary of State wishes to address his hon. Friend I am prepared to pause until the conversation has finished.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I assure the hon. Gentleman that if he goes on like this he will not hurry me one bit. All he will do is to prolong my remarks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would perhaps stick to the main theme of his speech. I am sure that the House will listen to it.

Mr. Peyton: I hope that you were able to hear what the hon. Gentleman was contributing just now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will he heard in silence.

Mr. Peyton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was endeavouring to look after myself without worrying the Chair by any requests for protection.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will protect the right hon. Gentleman when necessary.

Mr. Peyton: Perhaps I could have the Secretary of State's attention. The second point which worries me about the whole question of industrial relations is the lack of power which the TUC has over the trade unions. The third point is that we must find something which will work. There is a great danger in


this complex area in our looking for something which will satisfy appearances but which will do nothing useful in practice.
As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman in his thoughtful remarks raised no objection in detail to the clause. In the absence of such objection I cannot see why the Government find the clause deeply objectionable. It seems that the one thing we particularly require is some clear provision governing trade union elections. There has been a great deal of unease on this subject and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, either now or later, will be able to reassure us that he will not allow his attention to be diverted from this important point. It is not an adequate answer to say that the trade union movement objects to surveillance.

Mr. Ian Percival: I know that there are other hon. and right hon. Members who want to speak on the principle of the clause. I hope it will be convenient if I make one or two observations now on the technical points made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) and the Secretary of State. The hon. Member said that his purpose was to ensure adequate safeguards for the individual. He will know that this is precisely the line we have adopted in Committee.
The more we accept that, as a question of fact and/or law, the closed shop, particularly the post-entry closed shop, is a reality, the more important it becomes to take every available step to safeguard the rights of the individual. It is necessary to do something, not just to talk about it. The hon. Member has been wholly consistent in supporting anything of ours which was right in this context although he did not support us in other things when he felt that they would not achieve their objective. I was glad to hear him say that in pursuance of that consistent policy he and his colleagues will vote with us.
He is right to say that there is a difference between this clause and new clause 5. What we are talking about happens almost naturally in the context of the closed shop. That is no reason for limiting what we have in the clause to the closed shop. Occasions when injustices cannot happen outside the closed

shop may be very few but it is desirable that they should be covered too. The hon. Member appreciates that our clause has that effect and, I hope he will think on reflection, that merit.
The hon. Gentleman said that new Clause 5 has no remedies built into it, and that is undeniable, but I hope that he will not feel in that respect that it is unworthy of the support which he promised.
The Secretary of State is probably right in saying that not every word of the clause is justified by Donovan. So what? It is in the spirit of Donovan. The right hon. Gentleman has made many pronouncements much more recently than Donovan to the effect that he wants to provide a remedy for the person, rare as he may be, who suffers by arbitrary exclusion or expulsion. He has spoken in terms which seemed to hold out a promise of doing that by legislation. The House will be disappointed to learn that the Secretary of State appears to have given up the attempt to legislate and proposes instead a code of practice.

Mr. Foot: I am not necessarily saying that. I am suggesting that the best way to deal with it may be through legislation. That is what I meant when I said on previous occasions and repeated today that the most feasible way might be on the basis of the Donovan recommendation. That would involve legislation.
Another possibility, suggested by the Liberal Party spokesman, is that it could be dealt with by a code of practice. The code of practice could be included in legislation even if it did not contain any sanctions. It would be a good idea—and is consistent with what I have said all along—to have discussions with the TUC General Council to see which is the best remedy and the best way to solve this problem. That does not exclude legislation. If we could not arrive at a better solution by another method, we should have to do it by legislation.

Mr. Percival: If I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, I apologise. I am not sure from his intervention whether I did misunderstand him. He seemed to be accepting the possibility that there might be provisions in the nature of a code of practice with no sanctions attached. That suggestion does not satisfy us. We are concerned not just about


picketing, because in certain circumstances it is right. Whatever form this takes it is essential that there should be some sanctions or, more particularly, some remedies. We are seeking remedies rather than sanctions. We seek sanctions to the extent that we want to protect the individual, but we also seek remedies for him
The Secretary of State said that the clause did not take fully into account trade union procedures. That suggests that he has not quite understood the format of the sanctions or remedies. This is a three-stage remedy. First, the question whether the exclusion or expulsion was arbitrary goes to an industrial tribunal. All the expertise of the members of the tribunal is brought to bear on that difficult question. I think the right hon. Gentleman will probably agree that the right approach is to make the provisions of the clause general and to leave it to the expertise of the industrial tribunal.
What the right hon. Gentleman probably has in mind about trade union procedures is that some unions provide for an appeal to the executive or governing body of the union if a branch turns down an application. That must be what he means when he says that the clause does not allow for trade union procedures. But it does. The industrial tribunal will be composed of people who know all about those procedures. If certain internal procedures were available to the individual the tribunal would tell him to go away and to pursue that appeal. The tribunal might even say something that would be useful in producing a satisfactory outcome. The tribunal would tell the individual to exhaust his remedies and then come back. That is stage one.
The second stage is that the application is either dismissed or declared. That allows for a period for the union to reconsider its position in the light of everything that has been said at the hearing and to decide what course to take. It gives another opportunity to both parties to consider what has been said and to arrive at an agreed solution.
The third stage of this three-part remedy is, if all else fails, for the person who has suffered to go to the High Court. The right hon. Gentleman referred to

injunctive remedies. Courts do not lightly grant injunctions. An injunction might be the only remedy, but courts regard injunctions as the last step, as a remedy to be used when there is no other that will meet the case.
The clause gives the court the widest discretion so that it may do what is just and equitable. It is not a valid criticism to say that we have not allowed for existing trade union procedures or that the remedies are of the wrong kind.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we have not taken sufficient account of what has happened since Donovan. Nothing has happened. We have had six years of discussion. The TUC published a pamphlet called "Action on Donovan" in which it was said that the Donovan proposals in this respect were acceptable to the TUC. I do not mean to imply that nothing has been done by the TUC. There have been discussions amongst members of the TUC and its constituent bodies and between the TUC and the Secretary of State, but nothing has emerged from them. Nothing has been done in the sense that the position in law is exactly as it then was. If someone suffers injustice, he still has no remedy. We feel that the time has come to do something and to provide a remedy.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the common law remedies based on natural justice were adequate. That is contrary to what he and his hon. Friend said in Committee, which was that there were some rights but they were rather limited.
I ask the Secretary of State to remember the Faramus case in which a man was thrown out of a closed shop industry because of two minor convictions years before when he was under 20 and in enemy-occupied territory. The common law rights are so limited that the common law could not protect him, and most people would agree that the man suffered injustice. The case went to the House of Lords and it was decided that the common law powers of the judges were not wide enough to give a remedy—a remedy which the courts, and I am sure most hon. Members, would like to have. I am limiting myself to the technical reason but I hope this meets some of the points made by the Secretary of State for Employment.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell: Perhaps I may reinforce my hon. and learned Friend's point by mentioning a constituent who found himself in a somewhat similar position necessitating an application to the High Court. It was an expensive matter and it was only because of the generosity of Daily Telegraph readers that he was enabled to go to the High Court to get justice. There are many such cases, and it should surely not be left to the generosity of newspaper readers for a man to be able to take the case to appeal.

Mr. Percival: My hon. Friend raises a practical point, and it is another respect in which the remedies that we are seeking to provide are likely to be so much more practical and more readily available, since the industrial tribunal procedure is so well known to millions of trade unionists and others. The first step will be easy and cheap and may well resolve the matter. After that the steps are equally simple. My hon. Friend's intervention strengthens the argument and I hope that it will help to persuade the Secretary of State to come to the view that our case is a very strong one.

Mr. John Farr: The majority of hon. Members will be disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment was so firm in rejecting our new Clause 1 and new Clause 5 put forward by the Liberal Party. The right hon. Gentleman took a record amount of time, some 20 to 25 minutes, to say "No", although he did so in a nice but firm way. At the beginning of the Report stage of the Bill it is not a very promising start or a very good augury for what may lie ahead in the next two days.
Conservatives fully supported the Conservative Government two or three years ago when we introduced the Industrial Relations Bill. We now recognise, after a trial of time, that a few amendments and sensible alterations are needed to the Act. The new clause, which makes minor alterations to the Bill, but which is a matter of great importance to workers, has met with a complete refusal and stonewalling on the part of the Secretary of State. I cannot understand why

the Secretary of State is being so stubborn on this simple clause.
The effect of the clause is to ease the lot of employees in the closed shop industry who will be in a difficult situation. If the worker is not in a closed shop industry, then the failure by the Government to accept the clause will not matter so much, but if he is in such an industry then exclusion from his union virtually will mean exclusion from his job. There are a number of closed shop industries and companies in the United Kingdom, and I doubt whether anybody in the House thinks it right that a trade union official should have the power to make a life or death decision in respect of a closed shop industry. If the clause is not accepted, a number of employees in closed shop industries will be placed in grave difficulties.
At present many public utilities, such as the railways, have a closed shop situation. If the clause is not accepted by the Government, then a worker who loses his job in such an industry will have to leave that industry completely and perhaps accept a lesser job for which he has not been trained. He will have to face a reduction in his standard of living, and of course it will affect his family. We regard this state of affairs as very wrong.
I was concerned to hear the Secretary of State say that probably one of the best ways to deal with this question was not by legislation but by leaving matters to the TUC. I do not think the nation as a whole wants to see any more sharing of Government by the TUC than is the situation at present. I think that an early election will indicate that most people in the country already believe that the TUC has far too big a say in the running of the nation. As for asking the TUC for its advice on the clause, I believe that would be unwise since it is hardly likely that the TUC would recommend a provision which seeks to curb and restrain the already overwhelming power and strong position of many trade unionists.
I wish to support new Clause 1 since it involves an important point of principle. It would not mean much to the Government if they were to give way on this matter, but it would certainly mean that a large number of trade unionists


who find themselves in grave jeopardy would be assisted.

Mr. David Madel: I should like to ask a question on subsection (4) of new Clause 1, and I hope that it will be answered either by my own Front Bench or by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment. This relates to the sort of tragedy which could happen when workers try to take these important matters to a court of law.
Subsection (4) deals with what a worker may do if a declaration by an industrial tribunal allowing him to become a member of a union is ignored. It assumes that once the worker has received the declaration from the industrial tribunal he will be a member of the union and, if no action is taken by the union, the worker can apply for an injunction to the High Court or to the Court of Sesison in Scotland. It may be that a worker who receives a declaration from an industrial tribunal may not bother to pursue the matter further. I am talking of a particular case in the past where a man was excluded from a union, went to a different job and in the end threw in the towel.
I am wondering whether, under the new clause, it will be open to the trade union to make application to the High Court to set aside the declaration of the industrial tribunal if the individual worker does not contest it in the High Court. Obviously, it should be open to the trade union to apply for the declaration to be set aside in those circumstances. I do not think that it would do industrial relations any good in any area of the country if a trade union had such a declaration hanging over its head and no further action was taken by the worker under subsection (4). My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) may be able to clear up this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittany said that he hoped trade unionists would play an active part in the industrial tribunals. I see certain difficulties here. The clause refers to "appropriate qualifications" for membership of a particular union. In this connection, we shall be imposing great responsibilities on the industrial tri

bunals as new processes come about and when mergers take place between unions. There may be strong arguments about whether a newly-created union should take into its ranks people whom, before the merger, it would not have considered qualified for membership. That point, too, can be answered if the hope of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby is realised and trade unionists play an active part in industrial tribunals.
The Secretary of State said that he wanted to avoid a situation where individual workers went to the courts so that injunctions were flying round and a great many strikes and stoppages resulted. I hope that there is the closest contact between the conciliation and arbitration service and the industrial tribunals and that, if an industrial tribunal makes a declaration under the clause and it looks as if there will be trouble, automatically the conciliation and arbitration service will intervene to see that the individual worker is encouraged to carry out the provisions of subsection (4). If the conciliation and arbitration service does that, it will meet the point made by toe Secretary of State. It will avoid the necessity of going to the High Court, and the matter will be able to be solved by the new service, which we all wish well, since we all want to see an improvement in industrial relations.

Mr. David Waddington: I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that we who served on the Standing Committee tried to approach the Bill in a constructive spirit, and that our proceedings in Committee were remarkably free of acrimony. However, it was my hope that the Secretary of State would start this Report stage by being a little more conciliatory and by admitting that it is very important for hon. Members to pay regard not only to the rights of the trade unions but to those of individuals.
The Secretary of State conceded in Committee, and he has conceded it again today, that there should be some protection against arbitrary exclusion from a union of which a man has to be a member if he wishes to follow his occupation. All that we have been arguing about is how that protection can best be achieved.
I was astonished by some of the arguments advanced by the Secretary of State.


First, he said that the employment protection Bill that he proposed to bring forward in due course might well be the best vehicle to provide this protection, since that would give the House more time to discuss this vital matter. In Committee, although the right hon. Gentleman was always very polite, he did not hesitate to make it plain that he thought that we had all had more than enough time to discuss these matters.
The right hon. Gentleman then said that the High Court could provide a remedy in many cases. It is very strange to hear the right hon. Gentleman saying that in view of his strictures and abuse of Sir John Donaldson, a most eminent High Court judge—strictures of which I hope he is now somewhat ashamed.
6.15 p.m.
I do not refer just to the case of Faramus, mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). I remind hon. Members of the case of Rookes v. Barnard. That was not a case of wrongful exclusion, but it involved the rights of the individual. The plaintiff had to fight through the court of first instance, through the Court of Appeal and right to the House of Lords at enormous expense in order to get his rights. It is no credit to Government supporters that, as soon as they got hack to power in 1965, they decided to deny those rights to anyone else.
That is not an example of how the ordinary man can use the courts to get a remedy. It is very expensive to go through all these procedures. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's apparent dislike of the law and lawyers, I was surprised to hear him say that the individual who was wrongfully excluded from a union could always use the ordinary machinery of the courts.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that sufficient account had not been taken of the remedies already provided by unions and of the action taken by the TUC to see that unions provided these remedies. I should be happier with his argument if he had said that all unions provided a proper appeal procedure when a man was wrongfully excluded. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot say that. Since he cannot say it, we must look for some other way of providing that protection for the individual.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman said that hon. Members must be aware of the natural objection of the TUC and of unions to the surveillance of their rules. That was one of the most depressing remarks that I have heard for a long time. It shows that the right hon. Gentleman still has no real understanding of the great damage which can be done to individuals and the real abuse of human rights which can be involved in unions not having rules which allow proper appeal procedures. It is very disappointing, if not shocking, that after all this time the right hon. Gentleman should say that it is not all that important to provide a proper framework of procedures whereby a man can get a remedy if he is wrongfully excluded from a union which he needs to join if he is to follow his occupation because the TUC has a natural objection to anyone surveying trade union rules. This cannot be right, and I hope even at this late stage that the right hon. Gentleman will think about it again.
The clause is a modest proposal which should be acceptable to any right thinking person.

Mr. James Prior: I hope that the Secretary of State will now respond to the plea made by the Opposition to think again about this matter and to accept our new clause. After all, it is a very reasonable clause. The right hon. Gentleman has approached this debate so far in a conciliatory and quiet manner. It is unusual for him to do so, but he has done so on this occasion, and we wish to respond in a similar manner.
By this new clause, we seek to write into the Bill certain amendments which will enable this measure to become the foundation of the law on industrial relations. We think that it should be as satisfactory as possible in its principles and complete in its details, leaving as little as possible to be settled in future legislation that the Government propose. It is in that spirit that the Opposition approach these two days on Report.
The new clause seeks to provide safeguards for the individual against arbitrary or unreasonable exclusion or expulsion from a union. Where a worker is aggrieved by his expulsion or exclusion, he may apply to an industrial tribunal for a remedy.
Although the clause can stand by itself as a protection of the rights of individuals, the House will know that the definition of arbitrariness and unreasonableness is spelt out in subsections (10) to (13) of new Clause 2, to which we shall proceed in a few moments.
There is a wide area of common ground between all parties in the House on the principle which underlies this clause. There are three stages in the remedy. There is, first, the application to the industrial tribunal. We would hope to have at least one member of a trade union siting as part of the industrial tribunal. Cases would be heard in front of knowledgeable people who know the procedures of trade unions and who would take that into account.
There would then be a chance of further conciliation and, after that, consideration. Then there is the last stage of the remedy, which is the application to the High Court. No one can object to that sort of framework.
The right hon. Gentleman says that our remedy is wrong, that it would be much better if this could be done outside the law. I think that if there were an effective way of doing it outside the law, we would much prefer to see that happen. I sometimes wonder why it is that there should be an objection to cases, which are not very frequent, being heard within the law. The rest of us have to abide by the law. I would have thought in this case that it was not asking a great deal for the trade unions also to have to abide by a framework of law.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he would like further time to consider this and perhaps to include the provision in a code of practice, or perhaps in a code of practice of a later Bill. If he finds that there is a satisfactory way of doing this at a later stage within another Bill, then let him put it in that Bill. Let him then move to amend this Bill accordingly.
I do not think we should pass to a situation in which the closed shop provisions operate in this Bill but in which there is a period before anything comes into operation to help the individual. If we do not protect the rights of the individual in this House there is no one else to protect them.
There is a logical interdependence between the two principles of the institution of the closed shop and the protection of individuals from unreasonable treatment by unions in closed shop situations. There can be no logical reason for legitimising the closed shop in one piece of legislation and then leaving a gap of at least some months, or perhaps a year, before providing in another Bill for safeguards against unreasonable treatment of individuals in a closed shop situation. The two principles should stand side by side. Either both of them or neither of them should appear in the present Bill. Since the Standing Committee has already accepted the provisions of the Bill to legitimise the closed shop we feel it right to press for the second principle to be placed within the Bill.
This clause would have the effect of giving protection to the individual. It is no more than is demanded by natural justice. It is something on which the House should be able to agree. It is not a matter of great issue of principle between us, because the right hon. Gentle man has already accepted that something along the lines of this principle must be right. We say that it should be included in the Bill now so that it can stand in the Bill alongside the closed shop provisions. If the right hon. Gentleman does that then, at a later stage—if he should be there to bring in a later Bill—he could remove the provision from this Bill and put something else to take its place into the later Bill.
Hon. Members on this side of the House feel strongly that it is not right for the House to pass this legislation and to leave it to a later stage to introduce a provision to protect the individual on exclusion or expulsion grounds.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now feel able to respond. We are not seeking to delay the House in this issue. We are not trying to say that everything we have done in the past has been perfect. Everyone in the House will want to see the best possible Bill go on to the statute book. It is not as if anybody in this House could put his hand on his heart and say that he has the answer to all the problems of industrial relations. We have a duty to try to provide the best possible framework within this Bill. Our new Clause 1 will help towards that end.

Mr. Foot: With the leave of the House I should like to reply.
I do not wish to upset the reasonable tone in which the whole debate has been conducted. I do not complain that we have spent a considerable chunk of our time debating this matter. As I have acknowledged through all the discussions, that raises an important question. I am not persuaded by the arguments presented by hon. Gentlemen, just as apparently they have not been persuaded by mine, although one always lives in hope.
The hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) made a point about Donovan. He said that we do not think that his clause is justified by Donovan. In a lapse into legal language he asked, "So what?". The answer is that I am quoting Donovan in order to indicate that he is apparently regarded as the authority. But we have been through that during the Committee stage. Nobody who survived the Committee stage would quote Donovan as the absolute authority. I refer to it because I thought that it was suggested that the hon. Gentleman's clause was justified by the arguments contained in Donovan. I was suggesting in the most modest way that I did not think that argument could be properly sustained.

Mr. Percival: The right hon. Gentleman makes the observation that this was not entirely supported by Donovan. It derives a lot of support from Donovan. A great deal in Donovan suggests that something along these lines must be done. The right hon. Gentleman is right: it is not entirely supported by Donovan. That is why I asked "So what?".

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman is with me on the matter. He concurs in what f have said. I am gratified at that measure of support.
The Opposition seek to provide a remedy. We do not think the new clause will work. This is one of the reasons why we oppose that clause. We do not think the Opposition has taken sufficient account of what Donovan suggested as the way to deal with this problem. Donovan said that in the last resort only there should be an appeal to an independent review body that was set up. Donovan provided a remedy to deal with something that this clause does not deal with properly.
Our second objection is that this clause does not properly recognise the procedures of the unions for dealing with this matter. Donovan understood that better. He said the appeal to the outside tribunal should take place only in the last resort. The hon. Gentleman's clause does not say that. It introduces the industrial tribunal at an earlier stage, with the kind of danger I have described, particularly when there is the possibility of an injuncton.
We think that the clause would remedy injustices for some individuals but it could inflict injustices on some others. That is why we do not believe that it provides the right balance for dealing with the problem. We wish to get the balance right if we are to solve this problem. We do not think that the right balance has been achieved in Section 65 of the 1971 Act. We do not think the balance in this clause is right. We ask the House to assist us in our search for the way in -which we can get it right. That was what I was seeking to say in my earlier remarks.
6.30 p.m.
In my opinion—I trust that this will be the last comment that I make on the subject in this Bill—it would be more sensible for the House, if we genuinely want to secure a remedy which protects the unions from the dangers that they foresee in this kind of clause and protects the individual from the injustices against which we wish to protect him, to try to get a properly agreed solution to the problem. That is what we are asking for. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) might assist in that process, and I hope that he will take that into account.
However, if the House has a difference of opinion on the matter, we had better settle it by the old-fashioned method.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Cyril Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When I spoke in the debate earlier I addressed my remarks to new Clause 5, though I accept that the debate was on new Clause 1.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman had been in his place at the time, he would have heard me announce that new Clauses 1 and 5 could be discussed together.

Mr. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When I rose to speak a second time on new Clause 1 to reply to points made by the Minister, I received a message from the Chair advising me that on Report I was not allowed to speak a second time. May I ask you to advise me why a Minister is afforded that privilege but it is denied to a back-bench Member?

Mr. Speaker: I am advised that if the hon. Gentleman will study Standing Order No. 55 he will find the answer to his question. To put it in simpler terms, a Minister or Member in charge of a Bill

or the mover of an amendment or new clause has the right to speak more than once. Another hon. Member can speak more than once only by leave of the House.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I only wanted to say that if the right hon. Gentleman could not conciliate by accepting the clause, he has positively ruled himself out of being a member of our coalition.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 302.

Division No. 71.]
AYES
[6.33 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Crouch, David
Hannam, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Crowder, F. P.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hn. Miss


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen. James
Hastings, Stephen


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Havers, Sir Michael


Ancram, M.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hawkins, Paul


Archer, Jeffrey
Dixon, Piers
Hayhoe, Barney


Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Awdry, Daniel
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Henderson, J. S.B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)


Baker, Kenneth
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Heseltine, Michael


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Drayson, Burnaby
Higgins, Terence


Banks, Robert
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hill, James A.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Durant, Tony
Holland, Philip


Beith, A. J.
Dykes, Hugh
Hordern, Peter


Bell, Ronald
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)
Elliott, Sir William
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)


Benyon, W.
Emery, Peter
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Eyre, Reginald
Hunt, John


Biffen, John
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hurd, Douglas


Biggs-Davison, John
Farr, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Blaker, Peter
Fell, Anthony
Iremonger, T. L.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Body, Richard
Fidler, Michael
James, David


Boscswen, Hon. Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Jenkin. Rt. Hn. P. (R'dgeW' std &amp; W'fd)


Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Jessel, Toby


Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent. N.)
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bray, Ronald
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Brewis, John
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)
Jopling, Michael


Brittan, Leon
Fox, Marcus
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Freud, Clement
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fry, Peter
Kershaw, Anthony




Kimball, Marcus


Bryan, Sir Paul
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gardiner, George (Reigate &amp; Banstead)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Buck, Antony
Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Kirk, Peter


Budgen, Nick
Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Bulmer, Esmond
Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh'&amp;Amsh'm)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Burden, F. A.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Knox, David


Carlisle, Mark
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Lamont Norman


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Lane, David


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Goodhew, Victor
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Channon, Paul
Goodlad, A.
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gorst, John
Lawrence, Ivan


Churchill, W. S.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)


Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Clark, William (Croydon, S.)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland &amp; Stmford)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gray, Hamish
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)


Clegg, Walter
Grieve, Percy
Loveridge, John


Cockcroft, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Luce, Richard


Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
MacArthur, Ian


Cope, John
Grist, Ian
McCrindle, R. A.


Cordie, John
Grylls, Michael
Macfarlane, Neil


Cormack, Patrick
Gurden, Harold
MacGregor, John


Corrie, John
Hall, Sir John
McLaren, Martin


Costain, A. P.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)


Craig, Rt. Hn. William (Belfast, W.)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Critchley, Julian
Hampson, Dr. Keith
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)




Madel, David
Quennell, Miss J. M
Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Raison, Timothy
Stokes, John


Mather, Carol
Rathbone, Tim
Stradling Thomas, John


Maude, Angus
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Tapsell, Peter


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Redmond, Robert
Taverne, Dick


Mawby, Ray
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Mayhew, Patrick (Royal T' bridge Wells)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David(H't'gd'ns're)
Tebbit, Norman


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Mills, Peter
Ridsdale, Julian
Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net, H'dn S.)


Miscampbell, Norman
Rifkind, Malcolm
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Townsend, C. D.


Moate, Roger
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)
Trotter, Neville


Molyneaux, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Monoy, Ernle
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Tyler, Paul


Monro, Hector
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Morgan, Geraint
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Viggers, Peter


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)
Waddington, David


Morris, Michael (Northampton S.)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Morrison Charles (Devizes)
Sainsbury, Tim
Wakeham, John


Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Mudd, David
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wall, Patrick


Neave, Airey
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Walters, Dennis


Neubert, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Warren, Kenneth


Newton, Tony (Braintree)
Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)
Weatherill, Bernard


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Shersby, Michael
Wells, John


Normanton, Tom
Silvester, Fred
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Nott, John
Sinclair, Sir George
Wiggin, Jerry


Onslow, Cranley
Skeet, T. H. H.
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Winterton, Nicholas


Osborn, John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'm'ngton)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Spence, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Pardoe, John
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)
Sproat, Iain
Younger, Hn. George


Pattie, Geoffrey
Stainton, Keith



Percival, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Stanley, John



Pink, R. Bonner
Steel, David
Mr. Adam Butler and


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant


Prior, Rt. Hn. James
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Clemitson, Ivor
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Allaun, Frank
Cocks, Michael
English, Michael


Archer, Peter
Cohen, Stanley
Ennals, David


Armstrong, Ernest
Coleman, Donald
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Ashley, Jack
Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Ashton, Joe
Concannon, J. D.
Evans, John (Newton)


Atkins, Ronald
Conlan, Bernard
Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk &amp; G'm'th)


Atkinson, Norman
Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Faulds, Andrew


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Crawshaw, Richard
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Cronin, John
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)


Bates, Alf
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Flannery, Martin


Baxter, William
Cryer, G. R.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cunningham, G.(lsl'ngt'n, S &amp; F'sb'ry)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Cunningham, Dr. John A.(Whiteh'v'n)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael




Ford, Ben


Bidwell, Sydney
Dalyell, Tam
Forrester, John


Bishop, E. S.
Davidson, Arthur
Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)


Boardman, H.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Freeson, Reginald


Booth, Albert
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Deakins, Eric
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
George, Bruce


Bradley, Tom
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Gilbert, Dr. John


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Delargy, Hugh
Ginsburg, David


Brown, Bob(Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Golding, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Dempsey, James
Gourlay, Harry


Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. &amp; Sh'ditch)
Doig, Peter
Graham, Ted


Buchan, Norman
Dormand, J. D.
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Grant, John (Islington, C.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, WoodGreen)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James (Cardiff, S.E.)
Dunn, James A.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
Dunnett, Jack
Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)


Campbell, Ian
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Hamling, William


Cant, R. B.
Eadie, Alex
Hardy, Peter


Carmichael, Neil
Edelman, Maurice
Harper, Joseph


Carter, Ray
Edge, Geoff
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Hattersley, Roy




Hatton, Frank
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney&amp;P'plar)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Marks, Kenneth
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)


Heffer, Eric S.
Marquand, David
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N.E.)


Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)


Hooley, Frank
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Silkin, Rt. Hn. S.C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)


Horam, John
Meacher, Michael
Sillars, James


Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Silverman, Julius


Huckfield, Leslie
Mendelson, John
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mikardo, Ian
Small, William


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Millan, Bruce
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Milne, Edward
Spearing, Nigel


Hunter, Adam
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Spriggs, Leslie


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I, EdgeHI)
Molloy, William
Stallard, A. W.


Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Moonman, Eric
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Jackson, Colin
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)


Janner, Greville
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Moyle, Roland
Stott, Roger


Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Strang, Gavin


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)
Murray, Ronald King
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


John, Brynmor
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oakes, Gordon
Swain, Thomas


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Ogden, Eric
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
O'Malley, Brian
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Orbach, Maurice
Tierney, Sydney


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Orme, Rt. Hn. Stanley
Tinn, James


Judd, Frank
Ovenden, John
Tomlinson, John


Kaufman, Gerald
Owen, Dr. David
Tomney, Frank


Kelley, Richard
Padley, Walter
Torney, Tom


Kerr, Russell
Palmer, Arthur
Urwin, T. W.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.


Kinnock, Neil
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Lambie, David
Parry, Robert
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)


Lamborn, Harry
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lamond, James
Pendry, Tom
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Latham, Arthur (City of W' minster P'ton)
Perry, Ernest G.
Watkins, David


Lawson, George(Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)
Phipps, Dr. Colin
Watt, Hamish


Leadbitter, Ted
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Weitzman, David


Lee, John
Prescott, John
Wellbeloved, James


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)
White, James


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitehead, Phillip


Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)
Radice, Giles
Whitlock, William


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rees, Rt. Hn. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wigley, Dafydd(Caernarvon)


Lipton, Marcus
Reid, George
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lomas, Kenneth
Richardson, Miss Jo
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Loughlin, Charles
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


Loyden, Eddie
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Williams, Rt.Hn.Shirley(H'f'd&amp;St'ge)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


McCartney, Hugh
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wilson, Gordon(Dundee, E.)


MacCormack, Iain
Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)


McElhone, Frank
Rooker, J. W.
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Roper, John
Woodall, Alec


McGuire, Michael
Rose, Paul B.
Woof, Robert


Mackenzie, Gregor
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Maclennan, Robert
Rowlands, Edward
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Sandelson, Neville



McNamara, Kevin
Sedgemore, Bryan
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Madden, M. O. F.
Selby, Harry
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Magee, Bryan
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)
Mr. Laurie Pavitt.


Mahon, Simon
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2

RULES OF TRADE UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS

(1) The rules of every trade union and employers' association shall contain provisions in respect of the matters mentioned in the following subsections of this section.

(2) The rules must specify the name of the trade union or employers' association, the address of its principal office and the objects for which it was established.

(3) The rules must make provision as to the purposes for which, and the manner in which, any property or funds of the trade union or employers' association are authorised to be applied or invested.

(4) If any financial benefits are to be available for members of the trade union or employers' association out of its property or funds, the rules must make provision as to the amounts of those benefits and the circum stances in which they are to be available to members.

(5) The rules must specify the manner in which any rules of the trade unions or employers' association can be made, altered or revoked.

(6) The rules must make provision for the election or appointment of officers and for the manner in which officers can be removed from office.

(7) The rules must make provision:—
(a) for the election of a governing body and for its re-election at reasonable intervals;
(b) for the manner in which members of the governing body can be removed from office.

(8) If the trade union or employers' association has officials (whether they are shop stewards, workplace representatives or other officials) who are not officers of the trade union or employers' association, the rules must make provision for their election or appointment and for the manner in which they can be removed from office.

(9) The rules must make provision as to the manner in which, for any purposes of the trade union or employers' association elections are to be held or ballots taken, including the following:—
(a) notification of vacancies and qualification of candidates;
(b) making of nominations;
(c) canvassing or content of election addresses, where these are permitted;
(d) eligibility for voting in any such election or ballot;
(e) procedure preparatory to any election or ballot;
(f) the procedure for counting and scrutiny of the votes and ballot papers; and
(g) the procedure for the declaration or notification of the result of any such election or ballot.

(10) The rules must specify the descriptions of persons who are eligible for membership of the trade union or employers' association or a branch or section of the trade union or employers' association and the procedure for dealing with applications for membership, including provision for appeals against decisions of the committee or other body responsible for determining such applications.

(11) The rules must specify:—
(a) the offences for which the trade union or employers' asociation is entitled under the rules to expel a member or take other disciplinary action, and the penalties applicable for each of those offences;
(b) the procedure for the hearing of cases in which offences against the rules are alleged; and
(c) the procedure with respect to appeals against any decision on any such hearing.

(12) The rules must prescribe a procedure for settling disputes between a member and the trade union or employers' association or an officer of the trade union or employers' association.

(13) In making provision for any hearing or a determination of any question, whether in relation to an alleged offence, an appeal or a

dispute, the rules shall be so framed as not to depart from, or permit any departure from, the rules of natural justice '.—[Mr. Percival.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Percival: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if we discuss with the new clause Amendment No. 60, in Clause 5, page 5, line 13 after 'below', insert:
and section of this Act (Rules of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations)'.

Mr. Percival: If I heard you aright through the hubbub, Mr. Speaker, Amendment No. 60 can conveniently be discussed with new Clause 2. I agree, but Amendment No. 60 does not necessarily follow on from the new clause. I assume that there will be a separate Division on it if necessary.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will withdraw as quietly as they can. In reply to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), we will deal with that situation when we come to it.

Mr. Percival: Yes indeed, Mr. Speaker I hope that we will be able to open up the margin a little more in this case and put it the other way round. I should have thought that the arguments in favour of what I now have the honour to move are so strong that there is every hope that that result will be achieved.
If the Bill becomes law in its present form, the Government will have brought about a situation in which, for the first time since 1871, there are no statutory requirements about the rules of a trade union. That would be a remarkable result, the more so because, as has been pointed out by Ministers in Committee in some respects the Bill is imposing new and more substantial obligations on some unions which did not have obligations before. I am thinking of obligations in respect of accounts and returns which apply not only to registered unions but to all unions. It would be even more remarkable in view of the numerous statements by high authority to the effect that all is not well in this part of trade union affairs.
"In Place of Strife", referring to the state of union rule books, said:
The Government considers that the present legal requirements relating to the rules of trade unions are inadequate and should be extended in the interests both of the unions and of their members.
It specified the areas in which unions would be required to have rules, including admission, discipline, disputes between a union and its members, elections, strike ballots and the appointment and functions of shop stewards. Most hon. Members would agree that it is as much in the interests of the members of the unions as it is of the public that rule books should cover a wide variety of important matters in clear terms.
I am aware of the importance attached to these requirements by the TUC. I know the time that it has spent considering what form rule books should take, but having seen some rule books which featured in cases in the last four years I know that not all rule books have reached the standard we would all like.
I had intended to say here that the Donovan Report does not support all that I will say, but in fact I think that it supports every word. The requirements about rules in the new clause are simply a revamping of the 1871 requirements to bring them up to date, plus the Donovan recommendations. They fall far short of the detailed requirements in the Industrial Relations Act and I hope that no one will suggest that the clause is affected one way or another by that Act. We are not seeking its re-enactment.
Paragraph 648 of the Donovan Report states:
We have said that it is very desirable that trade union rule-books should be clear and unambiguous, but that they generally fall far short of a satisfactory standard in these respects.
I know that the TUC has had regard to that and has done a great deal of work to improve on the situation, but its labours are not complete. We are concerned not with those who have brought their rule books up to date—congratulations to them; the new clause will not bother them—but with the number, great or small, which have not yet done so and with future bodies which may seek to bring themselves within the definition of "trade union" in the Bill.
In Committee, Ministers suggested that the word "organisation" connoted a tighter sort of body than the previous description and postulated a body which at least had some rules. If so, one is now thinking of new bodies which will want to take advantage of the Bill. Surely it is plain common sense to provide as a matter of law for the minimum requirements to be covered by the rules of those bodies.
The Donovan Report went on to say:
The current requirements as to the rules of a registered trade union are that they should ' contain provisions in respect of ' certain matters ".
Those current requirements were the 1871 requirements. Subsections (2) to (7) inclusive of the new clause can be identified by reference to that paragraph of the Donovan Report, so it is not necessary to go back to the old-fashioned language of the 1871 Act. But any hon. Member who thinks we have gone beyond those provisions should compare these subsections with Donovan.
Subsection (8) is based on paragraph 654 of Donovan:
The requirements as to rules in relation to elections should include the rules for the election of shop stewards (or other workplace representatives), if the union has them.
We would all regard that as good practical common sense. All that some hon. Members seem to object to is that it should be required as a matter of law. I hope that the Minister will address his mind to that. Why should people mind good plain common sense being enshrined in the law?
7.0 p.m.
Subsection (9) is based on paragraph 653 of the Donovan Report. The subsection states that
The rules must make provision as to the manner in which, for any purposes of the trade union or employers' association elections are to be held or ballots taken, including the following: 
Right hon. and hon. Members will notice that this is not an attempt to interfere with unions and say whether or in what circumstances they shall have ballots. Whether or not they shall have ballots, and whether they shall be postal ballots or ballots in person, is left—as was recommended by Donovan, which we accept—properly to the discretion of the union. It is free to comply with these rules in


whatever way it thinks best and whatever way best suits its particular working basis. All that the subsection does in connection with these very important events—we recognise that they are very important in the life of a union, just as they are in any other kind of organisation—is to make provision for the voluntary matters, such as notification of vacancies and qualification of candidates. Is it not absolutely elementary that they should make provision? Therefore, who can object to having a requirement to make that provision?
The making of nominations is the next requirement, followed by
canvassing or content of election addresses, where these are permitted; eligibility for voting in any such election or ballot".
If one casts prejudice aside, is this not a very desirable guide and could it not make a very useful check list when drawing up one's rules? One might forget some of these matters quite unintentionally. One could check with this and say "Yes, I forgot that." It is a matter of common sense and not a matter of law. Who would not do it voluntarily? Those who would not do it voluntarily would be omitting to do it for some ulterior motive, because they did not want this or because they were idle or did not have the necessary skill or organisation.
It is quite a business drawing up a set of rules for a union. I should have thought that anything like this, simply giving guidance—although I am wrong here because it would not be guidance; it would be the law—would give very useful practical guidance to someone drawing up a set of rules. I should have thought that it would be acceptable to all who took the view that every such organisation should be properly run and should cover all these matters.
Subsection (10) is from paragraph 650 of the Donovan Report. It is linked with a point raised by the Secretary of State in the previous debate. The Donovan Commission said:
The rules should also state who has the power to consider and decide applications for admission; that applicants refused admission should have a right of appeal to the executive committee of the union and should be so informed at the time of refusal of admission; and that the executive committee has the power to admit applicants where an appeal is upheld.

In subsection (10) we make just such provisions—not necessarily word for word, because when one is translating a recommendation into statutory phraseology which has to stand the test of litigation it is not only permissible but desirable to draw it a little tighter. But I defy any hon. Member to find anything in subsection (10) which is in any way out of tune with what Donovan said, either generally in the whole of this part of the report or more particularly in paragraph 650, upon which subsection (10) is based.
Subsection (11) can be directly related to paragraph 651. The subsection states:
The rules must specify:—
(a) the offences for which the trade union or employers' association is entitled under the rules to expel a member or take other disciplinary action, and the penalties applicable for each of those offences.
That must be a "must". No one could suggest otherwise. I should have thought everyone would agree that every set of union rules should provide for these matters. I therefore say again, why not let us here say so and make that the law? For those few, however small in number they are, and even if it is only one body, who will not do it without its being made law, it is worth having these provisions.
The second provision is that the rules must specify
the procedure for the hearing of cases in which offences against the rules are alleged.
Again, it is quite incontrovertible to insist on that. Subsection (11)(c) states:
the procedure with respect to appeals against any decision on any such hearing.
Subsection (12) is based on paragraph 652 of the Donovan Report. It states:
The rules must prescribe a procedure for settling disputes between a member and the trade union or employers' association or an officer of the trade union or employers' association.
Here again, this demonstrates the point I was making. This cannot be said to be detailed interference. What this says is that
The rules must prescribe a procedure for settling disputes.
What that procedure is, subject to subsection (13) to which I shall refer shortly, is entirely up to the union, and the union may make it whatever it thinks best in general terms or what it thinks best and necessary in regard to its particular setup and organisation. I appreciate that this may vary enormously. It depends


on whether one is dealing with groups of people working in small areas or people who do shift-and-shift about. There may be all sorts of different practical reasons for having different ways of settling these matters. Furthermore, the procedure for settling them may depend on the constitution of the union.
Therefore, in subsection (12) we have set out to give the union the widest possible discretion in drawing up its own procedures. It cannot be criticised as being interference in the domestic affairs of a union or an employers' association. Although for the sake of brevity I have referred to trade unions, nothing that I have said is aimed against anyone. It is aimed at both trade unions and employers' associations. I referred only to the one because that makes my speech at least that much shorter.
Subsection (13) brings in the other factor referred to by the Donovan Commission. It is to be observed that in this part of the report the commission was unanimous. It is not a question, as in so many other matters, that some members say one thing and some say another. Here we can talk about the view of the Donovan Commission, of all its members. In dealing with the matters in subsection (11) of the new clause, the commission said that the rules there referred to must be such as to ensure that the rules of natural justice were observed. In subsection (13) we have done justice to that part of Donovan as well by saying:
In making provision for any hearing or a determination of any question, whether in relation to an alleged offence, an appeal or a dispute, the rules shall be so framed as not to depart from, or permit any departure from, the rules of natural justice.
That is the only fetter that is placed on the discretion for each union to choose its own way of carrying out those requirements. It is not a fetter to which any right hon. or hon. Member would object. All that it is saying is "When you draw these rules, draw them so as to ensure that they are themselves within the rules of natural justice"—I am sure we all want that—"and have in mind also that you should draw them so that nothing would represent a departure from natural justice".
That is the substance of it. I am sure that the best unions would do this automatically without thinking about it. What we are getting at are the unions that do not.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Which ones?

Mr. Percival: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say "Which ones?" If he says that every rule book is perfect, I must simply say that I do not think he is right. I have seen some rule books referred to in the courts and heard some of the arguments based on them. Furthermore, even if the hon. Gentleman were right he would remember the kind of case to which I referred in Committee when we were discussing the common law remedy for someone who suffered injustice as a result of a breach of natural justice. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the rules of at least two unions were referred to and that they certainly did not comply with the requirements of this new clause.
I shall be delighted if the Minister tells us that all this is unnecessary, but even if he were right it would do no harm to include it. It will not impose extra work on anybody, so surely he will accept the clause. All the decent unions have complied with the requirements. They have been working hard in the last six years and have reached a suitable standard, but if we include the clause in the Bill it will require new people coming along to observe those standards. It will mean that any new bodies will have to observe them in the same way as existing bodies.
I hope I have satisfied the House that what we are recommending goes no further than reintroducing the 1871 rules and implementing the Donovan recommendations. If the Government doubt this, they can check for themselves whether I am right. What we find difficult to understand is the resistance to our proposal. It has been argued that we should not interfere in the detailed running of an organisation, and we accept that proposition. If we are to expect a big organisation to act responsibly we must give it the opportunity to do so, and we must not try to run every detail of its affairs. We are sure to get it wrong if we try. It is a totally different thing, however, to lay down in general terms


requirements with which the rules as devised by the unions must comply. That was recommended by Donovan and it is fully recognised in the clause.
The only other argument I have heard so far—perhaps others will be put forward in the course of the debate—is that our proposal is not necessary. I hope that the Secretary of State will not make that suggestion. We have grown to admire the frankness with which he faced up to issues in Committee. If he were to put that argument forward, it would be a step backwards for him. Even supposing that the clause is unnecessary at this moment, is any of us so naive as to imagine that even if we pass this law every organisation, present and future, will do all these things? Of course they will not. But if we pass the law we have a much better chance on the one hand of assisting bodies to get their rules into better shape and on the other hand of saying that they have an obligation to comply with these requirements.
7.15 p.m.
That leads me directly to Amendment No. 60. It is not a necessary consequence of the clause. The House will appreciate that when the clause has been added to the Bill, as I hope it will be, Clause 5 (3) will read
(3) Any organisation of workers or of employers, whenever formed, whose name is not entered in the relevant list may apply to the Registrar to have its name so entered and, subject to subsection (5) below, the Registrar shall, if satisfied that the organisation is a trade union or employers' association and that subsection (4) below and section "—
here we have left a space because we do not know what the section number will be, but it refers to the new clause—
of this Act … has been complied with, enter the name of that organisation in the relevant list.
Under subsection (2) all the major unions will have been automatically registered. Subsection (3) relates only to those which are not automatically registered and which come later and say to the registrar that they are trade unions as defined and they want to be entered in the relevant list. As the Bill stands, when they do that they have to satisfy him that they have complied with subsections (5) and (4). The amendment would simply mean that they would also have to satisfy him that they had complied with the provisions of the Act.
I ask the rhetorical question, is it not also plain common sense that that should be necessary? Is it not common sense that the registrar should compare the organisation's rules with the requirements of the Act to see that they comply? Those organisations would make doubly certain that their rules complied. Organisations newly starting up and wanting to register would start out with a model set of rules. Is that not wholly to be desired? The manner of achieving that is so simple. We merely add the new clause to the Bill and then we agree to Amendment No. 60

Mr. David Mitchell: The House is discussing a clause which lays down certain minimum standards to which all trade union rules must conform. It means that the rules must confirm to natural justice and the like. The House must realise that we are not dealing with a bowling club, a bingo club or something someone can join if he likes. We are dealing here with a wholly exceptional body in that because of the closed shop there is a compulsion to join on anyone wishing to work in his skill and career in many jobs, and also because of the decision of the Government on the previous new clause.
Therefore, it seems to me absolutely right—and I hope it will seem so to the Secretary of State—that there should be certain minimum standards laid down regarding the rules of trade unions. I hope we shall not have to force this matter to a vote and possibly find that some Members of the Liberal Party are not able to make it for a Division, which we would then lose. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to accept this clause and indeed welcome it, because it would go a long way towards demonstrating a consensus in the House as to the changes which are needed.
A trade union is a vast organisation and it is impossible to keep every shop steward sufficiently in touch with what is or is not acceptable. It is possible for a shop steward to indulge in petty tyranny and, possibly, he may be insensitive and wholly unaware of the effect on someone who is shy or gentle. The effect and the injustice in such circumstances would be no different from what would arise if there were an intention to bully, browbeat and frighten. It does not matter if a shop steward believes passionately that what he is doing is for a good cause—which it may


or may not be; for him to use unacceptable means does not justify the end.
It may be felt that this is airy fairy and that shop stewards do not try to coerce or bully people. I put before the House an example, and I hope that the Minister of State joins me in condemning what it involves. The example refers to a circular sent to members of the AUEW in Basingstoke last week. The circular stated:
Because you remained at work after being informed and requested to attend a mass meeting of all ALLEW members, it is recommended that you pay as a fine 39·5 pence into a charity of your choice and to agree to attend future meetings and to accept the majority decisions.
If you do not comply with the above request this matter will be taken through Trade Union procedure by informing your Branch Secretary and requesting that you be brought before the Branch Committee.
A gentle, older man would be terrified as a result of receiving that, and he would be frightened that he would be "branched" and worried about what might follow in regard to whether he would be allowed to continue to work in a closed shop area. I am sure that the Minister agrees that this is not the sort of procedure the British trade union movement would be proud of, or would wish to have—

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): The hon. Gentleman has referred to a circular relating to ALLEW rules. Will he therefore quote the rules of that union in relation to fines imposed by branches, so as to show if that matter is in any way appropriate to what we are now discussing?

Mr. Mitchell: I do not have the union rule book with me, but I am sure that the Minister will agree that if the action mentioned in the circular was within the rules of the union it would be wholly undesirable. I am pleased to see his concurrence in that.
If it is not within the rules of the union, it is right that there should be a means of appeal, such as suggested in the clause, for the unfortunate man who feels that he is the recipient of petty and unpleasant bullying. I say this to illustrate that it is not a matter of Westminster theory or of what we think are the niceties of life, but rather the reality of what happens on

the workshop floor. It is not a pleasant reality—

Mr. Booth: The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated that he has not read the rule book of the union he has mentioned and that he does not know the appeals procedure. If he had read the rule book and knew the appeals procedure he would not say what he has been saying.

Mr. Mitchell: It is all very well for the Minister to take that view, but I am talking about the reality of human life and about the unfortunate chap who is frightened by what he faces. We are concerned here with human nature. We must have a system in which rules are clear and are in conformity with natural justice; in which the individual knows that he has protection against bullying, and in which it is clear to the shop steward or convener concerned that the individual has a right of protection against being bullied—

Mr. Ronald Brown: The hon. Gentleman has taken a point in time after the event, whereas the man he has referred to would have known when he took the decision what would be the consequencies if he refused to go along with his colleagues. He would know that he would have to appear before his branch. The man would have taken his decision in the full knowledge of what he was doing

Mr. Mitchell: A democratically arrived at decision is one thing, but being told to do something by an official is totally different. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that.
The clause is important because if the Government are to carry a consensus of the House with them in what they are seeking to do they have a choice. That choice, which relates to reform of trade union and industrial relations in this country, is that we say either there is to be no compulsory membership and no closed shop, or there is to be a closed shop and compulsory membership of a trade union, in which case we must ensure that there is no petty tryranny and that the unions are run in conformity with the laws of natural justice. If the Government are to carry the House and the country with them they must ensure


that a trade union is fair and above board in what it does.
It is important that this clause should be passed. I hope it will be passed not so much through the strength of the vote on this side, but because the Secretary of State accepts it, in which case it will not be necessary to have a Division. This is a matter of simple natural justice.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: At the time of the publication of the Donovan Report the Liberal Party warmly endorsed virtually all its recommendations, including those referred to from the Opposition Front Bench in this debate. In debates such as these we reflect unhappily on the sad consequences of the rejection of the Donovan Report by the Conservatives at a time when their views were important, and on their arrogant assessment that they knew better than Donovan. We welcome the changed attitude shown from the Opposition Front Bench, an attitude in which all is now right with Donovan.
Although, as always on this bench, the words of the Secretary of State will be heard with care and interest, unless he can reveal some wisdom which was concealed from Donovan our present inclination is to support the new clause, recognising that for the vast majority of trade unions and their branches these provisions will not be required, because they are already observed by the overwhelming majority of trade unionists.
I should like to draw a parallel here with the limited liability company. That sort of company, like trade unions, enjoys fully justifiable privileges legally enacted. It seems to us reasonable that although the vast majority of limited liability companies would carry on business in a proper way and account satisfactorily to their shareholders for their stewardship. the law is required to deal with a small minority of limited liability companies which might through thoughtlessness, fecklessness—or even occasionally deliberately—try to dodge natural justice.
Therefore, I wish to face head on the argument that a clause of this sort is a reflection on the vast majority of trade unions. Small businessmen who carry on their concern with a limited liability do not regard the Companies Acts as a reflection on their integrity. They take it in

their stride, and regard it as a natural requirement to prevent the occasional black sheep from creating abuse.
7.30 p.m.
The case is strengthened by the changing pattern of employment. Many of us know from our constituency experience—I certainly know it from mine—that three-shift working and the arrival of large numbers of immigrants, not only coloured immigrants but people coming to us from other parts of these islands to work, mean that the union is not now the cosy assembly of familiar faces that it used to be in the West Riding of Yorkshire. There are many people who need the protection of things in writing and of a certain formality which is no reflection on the movement but simply caters for a new, more complicated and more difficult pattern of work.
The clause is of a minimal nature. It does not try to interfere in a bureaucratic, officious or rigid way with the conduct of trade unions. It is a simple statement of the obvious, for I should have thought that the vast majority of unions would welcome the enshrinement of these provisions in the law.
Therefore, unless some new wisdom is revealed to us at the end of the debate, it is the intention of the Liberals to support the clause.

Mr. Booth: I welcome the tone in which the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) addressed the House. Having listened to the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), one might have been forgiven for an impression that he thought that rule books were drawn up by unskilled people who did so very carelessly. On the basis of the speech of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) one would think that union rule books were what enabled petty tyrants to terrorise old men.

Mr. Percival: The Minister is less than his usual generous self. I said nothing of the sort. I recognised that most unions go to a great deal of trouble to get their rule book right. I said it at least three times, but I am glad to say it again so that there is no doubt about it.
The hon. Gentleman has misquoted me, I am sure inadvertently. I said that there might be quite small new bodies which would not be very well equipped to


carry out the exercise of drawing up rules, which requires skill and experience, and that they would probably find such a guide as is proposed very useful.

Mr. Booth: I welcome that intervention, but the hon. and learned Gentleman did refer to the need for skill and care in the drawing up of union rule books. Therefore, I welcome the fact that he acknowledges openly, not for the first time, that the majority of union rule books are drawn up with a great deal of skill and care. In fact, unions lay down careful rules for the holding of rules conferences and normally make provision for every one of their branches to submit amendments to rules at regular intervals. Those amendments are debated at union conferences, somewhat better attended than this debate, by people who are very concerned about the degree to which their union affairs are controlled by their rule books.
Therefore, when we talk about union rule books we must be conscious that we are talking about documents which have been drawn up on the basis of a considerable amount of experience. They have been drawn up by people who are concerned about their unions and who, through their unions, have sought to achieve a considerable degree of natural justice for their membership and justice in the regulation of the affairs between men in the work place and in the service of this country.
The effect of the clause is to make a highly detailed statutory provision for employers' associations' and trade unions' rules. It is interesting to note, first, that the clause does not cover rules relating to strikes and lock-outs. With all this length of detailed provision on union and employers' associations' rules in the clause, why was no attention given to the question of lock-outs and strikes? Certainly, Opposition Members would not tell the House that strikes and lockouts were unimportant matters, that they were occasions when considerations of natural justice should be set aside, or even occasions when the regulation of appeals by union membership against decisions of elected bodies or officers of the union should be set aside.
One of the reasons may be that in the framing of the new clause it was recog-

nised that there are certain matters at least which are far better left to the experience of those who have for years run employers' associations and trade unions and devised their rule books.

Sir Raymond Gower: Could not it be that this provision basically affects the relationship between the unions in making their rules so as to protect the separate members of those unions? It is true that lock-outs and strikes also impinge on the individual, but there the major conflict is often between unions and employers or nationalised industries and so on. Any impingement upon the individual would probably be covered by subsection (12), which refers to the procedure for settling disputes between a member and the trade union or employers' association. If that dispute arose from a strike or lock-out, it would probably be covered by that provision.

Mr. Booth: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. It may be that that subsection is intended to be so wide as to cover all these matters, but, if it is, the rest of the clause is possibly unnecessary, provided the rules prescribe a procedure for settling disputes between member and trade union or employers' association or officer of the union or employers' association. If it has that width of meaning, it will cover many other matters which are subject to separate provisions of the clause.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has very fairly pointed out that the clause was largely inspired by Donovan. In fact, it sets Donovan in a form which could be placed on the statute book and modernises part of the 1871 Act requirements. 'I here-fore, it is appropriate to examine the effect of Donovan on union rules.
As I have already pointed out, unions are not insensitive to their rule books or crticisms of them. In 1968 the TUC published "Action on Donovan", in which it undertook to consider the case for formulating certain basic principles for the rule books of unions. I do not know whether employers' associations responded in the same way, but, as the hon. and learned Gentleman's criticisms fell equally, in so far as they are applicable, between employers' associations and unions, the same sort of considerations should apply.
By June 1969 the TUC had organised a special meeting at which it presented the document "Programme for Action". That was endorsed by the conference, which recorded the intention of the General Council of the TUC to draw up a list of basic principles governing admission, discipline, expulsion and election procedure.
Between December 1969 and June 1970 a number of circulars were issued by the TUC which dealt with not only admission and discipline but strike procedures—a matter not covered by the clause—duties and responsibilities of shop stewards, and exclusion of members for arrears. Therefore, in that relatively short time, in response to the Donovan inquiry the British trade union movement had sought to deal with the Donovan criticisms.
I am not saying that that is the finish of that procedure. Of course, the Trades Union Congress must continue to be sensitive to any proper criticism. Let no one imagine that I or any of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have served the trade unions would accept the proposition that because Donovan made some criticism of trade union rules, every rule hook in the country needs drastic overhaul or severe modernisation. In fact, when the unions came to examine the TUC circular against their own rule books, many of them found that there was no need to amend their rule books to meet the requirements of the TUC circular. Some rule books did require minor modification. In some instances that modification could be quite properly described as the modernising of the rule book.
Many of the first rules that trade unions laid down have stood the test of time and many of the laws which have been made in this House have also stood the test of time. Of course, there is a difference between making laws for the country and making rules for trade unions. In one case there is a responsibility to the community as a whole. Trade unions have to demonstrate a responsibility to the community in terms of regulating their members within a movement which has been designed primarily to regulate the conditions of work of its members.
I was interested to note the point that the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) made on Amendment

No. 60. It is clear that the amendment would have a narrow effect. I take it that it would apply only to those who applied to the Registrar of Friendly Societies to be placed upon the list. If that is the sanction by which we should think of the new clause, I must say that it is rather a weak sanction. Under the construction of the Bill it is not necessary for a union to be on the list to nave immunities and protection, it is merely necessary to comply with the definition of a trade union. Of course, that makes the body which complies—

Mr. Percival: I am sure that the Minister will recollect that I did not advocate the effect of the amendment as a sanction but as something that was plain, practical, good common sense. If an organisation says, "We want to register" the registrar should say, "Let me look at your rule book to see whether it complies with the section." That is the spirit in which I advance the amendment, a spirit of plain common sense and not the advancement of a sanction.

Mr. Booth: I am happy to examine the proposition in exactly the same spirit of good plain common sense. By applying that common sense there would be a situation in which the Registrar of Friendly Societies could turn down a trade union on the ground that its rule book did not comply with the requirements of new Clause 2. The effect would be that the trade union would be ineligible for tax relief on its provident income. The registrar could turn down employers' associations, but the effect would not be the same. New Clause 2 affects one body differently from another. That might not have been the intention of those who tabled the clause, but that is most certainly the effect. But I would not ask the House only on the strength of that objection to Amendment No. 60 to reject New Clause 2.
In this country the trade union movement, having suffered some rather peculiar experiences—I shall not put it any higher than that so as to keep the tone of the debate reasonably amicable—over the past three years is possibly extremely sensitive to the passing of legislation in this House that has the effect of controlling its affairs. The British trade union movement has a proper concern that in the operation of


its rule books and in the regulation of its membership it should be continually revising its rules, seeking to improve them and adapting them to the requirements of its membership within a changing society.
I believe that it will be able to do so much better if it is left to carry out that task without having to operate within the statutory framework of various requirements. For that reason I hope that the House will reject the amendment if it is put to a Division. I invite hon. Members to withdraw it. I do not suggest that they do so because I believe that it was drafted with evil intent. I do not believe that for one moment. I accept that the hon. and learned Member for Southport is completely sincere in believing that it would have some beneficial effect on the rules of trade unions. I and many of my—

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rees: I have followed the Minister's speech with great care and interest. Will he indicate which provisions the trade unions will find particularly onerous? Or is it that they will not accept any legal supervision of their rules?

Mr. Booth: It is not that certain provisions are onerous and it is not that unions will not accept any supervision of their rules. Under the Bill not only do their rules have to be made available but also their accounts. The unions make no objection to that. What the trade union movement prefers as a matter of common sense is to have its rules subject to examination by the Trades Union Congress and to discuss through congress the principles that should apply in making their rule books.
I have the TUC circular if any hon. Member wishes to study its terms. It will be found by those who examine the circular that its terms not only go as far as the requirements of new Clause 2 but in some cases go much further in laying down principles which will guide the unions in the making of their rules. I think that that process, having been started, should be allowed to continue. It will be beneficial for the trade union movement and for employers' associations who are bracketed in the same cause. I

hope that in that spirit the House will be—

Mr. Richard Wainwright: I go along entirely with the Minister on the desirability of the TUC continuing its vigilance in these matters. I hope and believe that it will do so. If the new clause were to become part of the statute, will the Minister explain what ultimate sanction the TUC would have if it found itself in conflict with a union?

Mr. Booth: I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. The ultimate sanction of the TUC depends upon the way in which the TUC frames its own rules. The ultimate sanction which the TUC has applied in recent years for breaches of the decisions of Congress has been the expulsion of trade unions. I hope that we shall not consider it a practical possibility in the near future that any unions will be so opposed not only to the principles but to the structure laid down in the TUC circular as to defy the TUC to the point of being expelled. I believe that the unions will amend their rule books to meet the high and stringent standards of the TUC circular. I believe that they will co-operate in the process of expanding their co-operation in so far as it is possible.

Sir Raymond Gower: The Minister has made a powerful plea in putting forward the advantages for bodies such as the trade unions to self-govern, as it were, rather than to have any kind of direction or guidance from the State. Of course many bodies would prefer that situation. It can be imagined that joint stock companies would prefer to have the happy position of making their own rules under the benign guidance of some body which they would set up themselves. Similarly, unit trust organisers might feel that they could do far better if the Board of Trade did not interfere and lay down certain minimum requirements. This can be extended a great deal.
The Minister's argument in no way answered the case put forward. All that is being asked for here, by the Liberal Party as well as by the Conservatives, is the prescription of some minimum standards to be written into the Bill. We do not say that they should deal with the detailed requirements of the rules—merely that they should ensure that all rule books


come up to a minimum standard. The Minister explained that this was not necessary, because Donovan had come along and most of the unions had improved the quality of their rule books in accordance with his guidance.
If that is so, we might ask what objection can there be to the inclusion of this suggestion in the Bill. What possible objection can there be to the prescription of minimum standards when practically all unions observe these now? If these rule books are so excellent, why hesitate to incorporate these modest minimum requirements, which might catch the occasional new organisation which applies for registration? The post-Donovan picture according to the Minister indicates that some improvements were made by some unions. That suggests that there was room for improvement. It would be a bold man who said now that there was no room for further improvement.
I could understand the Minister's objection if these requirements were detailed matters, if they constituted pettifogging interference by the legislature. The Minister says that there is a big difference between legislating and the formation of rules. Of course there is. There is also a big difference between legislating in this House and the governing of any profession. The Law Society makes regulations, but this House has the final say. The House would interfere if it felt that such regulations were inadequate. Similarly, the House enacts broad legislation and lays down minimum standards which every company must meet. These are repeatedly being altered and improved, as they have been for most of this century.
Our predecessors here drew up what they thought was a perfect Companies Act in 1908. Succeeding Parliament have improved it. Nevertheless some future Parliament will seek to improve the Companies Acts. Yet apparently there is this one area where no improvement is required—an area peculiar to this country it seems. No minimum standards are required here. That is an extraordinary philosophy.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) made one error when he condemned our attitude to Donovan during the years 1970–1973. We did not reject Donovan. We read Donovan carefully and we took action on many of his

suggestions. We also read "In Place of Strife." We applied many of its provisions. We studied the procedure and the legislation all over the world. We do not regard this country as an oasis. We never imagined that we would get a perfect legislative solution at the first attempt. This is not an area in which we can live without legislation.
Labour Members are wrong to imply that this is something so special that it is different from anything else in this country and, conceivably, in the world. Surely the same principles apply here as elsewhere. We want minimum standards. We want to spell out these standards in broad terms, without any pettifogging. The Minister knows that there are differences and inconsistences which are not in accord with such basic requirements. I would have thought that he would be delighted to accept the clause because the requirements are reasonable, they demand so little and are so much in accord with natural justice.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I hope that the House will give a Second Reading to this clause which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) moved with such moderation. I regard the rules set out in the clause as the bare minimum required to be inserted in the Bill to justify the second part of its title—that part which refers to labour relations. Without some such rules the Secretary of State would be more accurate and more honourable if he were to describe the Bill as the Trade Union and Political Power Bill.
The Minister of State said nothing to reassure this side of the House. I know only too well the great care which unions take in forming their rules. I know of the great care which the TUC and its officials take when dealing with these matters. I am, even now, hoping to meet—socially I hasten to add—a trade union leader busy with a rules conference.
Nothing that has been said provides any reason for setting the trade unions apart from other organisations, for putting them outside the rules of law which govern such organisations. The Minister sought to do this simply on the grounds that unions are different. He said that they took great care. So do other organisations. He said that unions imposed a sense of discipline upon themselves. So


do others. No one argues that such other people or organisations should be outside the rule of law.
In referring to employers' associations, the Minister entirely ignored the difference in the trade union situation where there is the closed shop. Membership of a union is virtually compulsory for any one wishing to earn his living as an employee. When the hon. Gentleman defined the responsibility of the trade unions to the community he made it clear that he was claiming for them a degree of privilege which has not been matched except perhaps by the mediaeval Church or the modern Jockey Club. And what are the sanctions? Excommunication from the Church, a warning-off from the Jockey Club and expulsion from a union. That is not a legal action.
As it stands this Bill not only wipes out most of the 1971 Act, and destroys the central principle that underlay the whole thinking of "In Place of Strife" but it also weakens the concept of the rule of law on which both were founded, thus leaving a state of confusion. It is not much to ask that, in return, the Bill should contain, by statute under the authority of Parliament, the general rules which are set out in the clause.
8.0 p.m.
There is no doubt that the Bill as a whole represents a transfer of power from Government and Parliament to the TUC and the unions. It weakens Parliament but does nothing to strengthen the unions—either the union leadership or the TUC. In an earlier debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said that the TUC could not deliver. He did not say that in any sense of criticism. He stated it as a fact, and the unions have confirmed that it is a fact, in discussions with successive Governments and successive Ministers. The unions are negotiating bodies and not initiating bodies. They respond to a Government initiative but do not start an initiative of their own. How often, when asking the unions what positive contribution they can make to a given situation have I heard the answer "nothing. You put something forward and we will respond". I am not blaming the unions; I simply say that trade unions are organisations of that type.
The unions, rightly, are responsible to their members, and to their members alone. The way they are constituted, the way in which elections are held and the way in which officials are elected all too often mean that the voice of their most vocal and violent minority is the voice that has to be heard. In pretending otherwise, the right hon. Gentleman is producing a Bill that he knows cannot work.
I am not seeking to attack the unions or their leadership. I have said often enough in public and in private that I should like to increase their power provided that they would, or could, accept the responsibility that must go with power. I welcome the unions' conversion to the concept of employee participation, which I have advocated for many years, provided that it includes all employees as persons and not simply unions as organisations. I am attacking the concentration of power in the hands of people who are elected, sometimes irrationally, sometimes ineffectively and sometimes by a tiny proportion of the total union membership.
For those reasons I hope that the House will give a Second Reading to the clause containing this bare minimum of rules to deal with the situation with which we are all too familiar. I am seeking, too, to defend Parliament and the people we represent, and I include the rights of unions and their members. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State was right when he said that industrial relations legislation requires the consent of the unions. But it requires the consent not of the unions alone, still less of a mere powerful minority among them. It requires the consent of all the work people, management and the great mass of our people inside and outside trade unions whom we represent in Parliament.
There should be no conflict, provided that the Secretary of State and the Government regard themselves as accountable first to Parliament and only secondly to the unions and the trade union movement. Their rejection of the clause raises in all our minds and hearts the question, "Who do they regard as their masters—the unions or the people, the TUC or Parliament?"
The rules, contained in the clause, modest as they are, are a defence. They give guidance with the sanction of being


embodied in a statute. The only objection that has been made to them is that no one, not even the House, has the right to interfere and the right to set rules on how unions and employers' associations should conduct their affairs. They alone must have the right to make their own rules, however much their activities may affect the lives of others and, indeed, of the whole nation. If Parliament accepts that principle, we shall have surrendered our claim to represent the people.
An article in the Sun newspaper two days ago referred to this transfer of power from Parliament to the unions in these words:
Rarely, if ever, has Parliament offered so unconditional a surrender".
That surrender is echoed in the words of the Minister of State and in the whole attitude of the Secretary of State. I hope that in the vote we shall prove that correspondent of the Sun newspaper wrong. In this instance at least I hope that the will of Parliament will prevail and that we shall give a Second Reading to the clause.

Mr. Brittan: If debates on industrial relations have sometimes been characterised by exaggeration, this debate has been characterised by one extraordinary under-statement which fell from the lips of the Minister of State when he said that trade unions were extremely sensitive to interference or regulation. It was an under-statement because, to get something approaching the true attitude of trade unions to such regulations and control, one would have to substitute for the words "extremely sensitive" the word "paranoic". The degree of objection to any kind of control or regulation that has been shown by the Minister of State and his hon. Friends is out of all proportion to the extent of regulation proposed in the clause.
I have listened with great care to every word uttered by the Minister of State, but I have been unable to find in his speech a single reason why the new clause is objectionable. Reference was made to the existing rules of unions, and it was said that they were for the most part adequate. No one is disputing that the rules of many unions are now adequate, and if most of the rules are adequate very few unions will have anything to fear from the clause.
Reference was also made to the history of events since the Donovan Report. We heard of the 1968 document "Action on Donovan", the June 1969 TUC "Programme for Action" and the issue of circulars by the TUC to the unions. There was a significant omission. We were not told what proportion of trade unions have complied with the directives issued by the TUC. In the absence of that information, we have no basis for knowing how many trade unions have rules which would satisfy the requirements of the TUC, let alone how many trade unions have rules which would satisfy the requirements of the clause.
The proposition that it is all unnecessary is unsustainable and empirical on the evidence that has been presented and, even if it were right, would be no reason for failing to make sure by in nocuous regulation that the standards of existing unions were maintained and the standards of future unions attained.
The second proposition put forward by the Minister of State in answer to the new clause was that it contained highly detailed statutory requirements. Nothing could be further from the case. The last thing it seeks to do is to intervene in how a union operates its policy. All it seeks to do is to provide certain minimum procedural requirements. It is in that area that the answer can be found to the remark by the Minister that it was strange that the clause did not cover strikes and lock-outs, and that it was recognised by the clause that there were certain matters which should be left to the people most directly concerned—that is to say, to trade union members. There is nothing in the least paradoxical about the fact that strikes and lock-outs are not dealt with by the clause. The clause seeks to deal with procedural matters; it does not seek to interfere with policy matters. That is why it is inherently unobjectionable.
The clause will not prevent any trade union, if it so wishes, holding a strike, or any employers' associations organising a lock-out. It is not designed to do that. It is designed to provide the minimum procedural safeguards necessary for the protection of trade unions if the unions are to have the rôle in our society which they already have, or an increased rôle, which I am sure Labour Members would want them to have.
Finally, it was said by the Minister that the sanctions provided by the clause are weak. If that were true, it should be cause for rejoicing for Labour Members rather than cause for criticism and it should mitigate their fears about the consequences of the clause. I suggest that the sanctions are not spelled out, but that the requirements of the clause in peremptory terms—namely, that the unions must have rules relating to certain matters—are such that if those requirements were not complied with, it would not be a difficult matter to persuade the courts to take action in support of an individual who suffered as a result of the absence of rules dealing with the matters prescribed in the clause. It would not take legal ingenuity to frame a cause of action which would have the effect of ensuring that the union complied with the wording of the statute.
The arguments against the clause are not weak; they are simply non-existent. They are based on needless fear, on paranoia and on disregard for the obligations of trade unions to comply with the minimum standards required by the rest of the community if trade unions are to have, and to deserve, the elevated rôle that is sought for them by Labour Members.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. John Page: All my hon. Friends who have spoken this afternoon, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), have demolished the case advanced by the Minister of State against the new clause. In saying that the trade unions were in a particularly nervous condition, the Minister was suggesting that the confidence they have gained during the term of office of the Labour Government—the present Government being, of course, the political wing of the TUC—was so fragile that it might in some way be stunted or hurt by the new clause.
In appreciating the Minister's sensitivity, I should like to put a different argument to him, to call for his magnanimity and to ask him to put his amour propre back in his pocket. I ask him, on behalf of the trade union movement, to accept the clause to help the small, the very small and the medium-

size firms in their relationships with employers' associations. The Minister may feel that the trade union movement and its rules are faultless. In view of the fairness with which he dealt with hon. Members in the Committee stage, does he not agree that if new rules and controls are imposed on employers' associations, they should likewise be imposed on the trade union movement?
I and many other business men have been worried for a long time about the representation of the business community through employers' associations and ultimately through the TUC. I should have said through the CBI, but it is easy to make a mistake since the relationship between the two is so close that it is difficult to distinguish between them. Most small firms find the availability of their executives insufficient to enable them to spend time in committees with employers' associations. Even the medium-size firms find themselves overawed by the voices of the big companies which carry so much sway in employers' associations. In a plea to the Government for creative magnanimity, I ask them to accept the clause to help employers' associations, through their rule books, to improve the service they give to those they represent.
Subsection (2) of the clause provides that the rules must specify the objects for which an employers' association is established. Under the Bill any group of three or four employers could form themselves overnight into an unincorporated employers' association. They could call themselves the City of Westminster Employers' Association. That association might consist of a few small builders who wanted to have a row with some of the plumbers they employed, and it could then be protected by the umbrella of this great Bill. Would it not be a safeguard to the employees of firms, as well as to the small firms themselves, to stipulate that on the formation of an employers' association the kind of check list of rules shown in the clause should operate? It is important that even the principal office of the employers' association should be specified.
In paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (9) we cover the notification of vacancies, the qualification of candidates for membership of employers' associations and


the making of nominations. Some employers' associations are what might be called a magic circle, and I feel that there is insufficient advertising to enable member firms or potential member firms properly to nominate candidates for election to their governing bodies. Therefore, in humility, on behalf of the small employer and his employees, I ask the Government to accept the new clause.

Mr. Mawby: I have looked through the clause very carefully, and I cannot see how the Government can oppose it, especially in view of the fact, as I said in an earlier speech, that the Bill seeks to demolish parts of the 1971 Act which at least made certain that there would be overall supervision of the rules of trade unions and employers' associations.
With the repeal of those parts of the 1971 Act, we are left in a situation where both trade unions and employers' associations are completely free to decide what their rules are to be and completely free to have no regard to the general public interest.
The clause lays down only reasonable requirements. A cursory look at the clause reveals that that is all that it seeks to do. Subsection (9), for example, requires that both trade unions and employers' associations shall provide in their rules the procedures for the notification of vacancies and qualification of candidates, the making of nominations, canvassing and the content of election addresses, where these are permitted, eligibility for voting in any election or ballot, and the procedure preparatory to any election or ballot. All of them are reasonable requirements. Taking into account the fact that the requirements of the 1971 Act are thrown out completely, I believe that reasonable procedures should be laid down whereby both trade unions and employers' associations are required by law to observe what most people would expect to be the normal procedures.
It will probably be said in reply, with complete honesty, that in the majority of cases these are the normal procedures adopted by both employers' associations and trade unions. The difficulty is that, in making laws in this House, we are concerned in the main with the scrimshanker—the person who does not recognise normal rules. We have to concern ourselves with the minority of people who consider themselves outside the

normal rules. Most people will try to carry out normal standard procedures regardless of whether they are required to by law.
Most trade unions—certainly the TUC—recognise that they have to apply the standard rules of behaviour accepted by normal society. But there is always the odd person or group of persons who will not be bothered with normal standards and who will seek to break the law. We have to deal with such persons, and I believe that the clause does so in a perfectly reasonable manner. It does not ask them to do anything unreasonable.
For those reasons I ask the Secretary of State to consider very carefully the possibility of accepting the clause.

Mr. Prior: I have not previously listened to a debate in which the arguments have been so one-sided as those that we have heard today. I have a certain sense of despair and dismay when I listen to a speech of the kind that we heard in reply to the debate. I should have thought that, in itself, the attitude of a minority Government to a clause which obviously has massive support both in this House and outside it was a matter on which some concession could be made with a great deal of ease.
We are told that the reason why the clause cannot be accepted is that the trade unions do not want it. An argument of that kind does not reflect the sovereignty of Parliament about which the Secretary of State has lectured us from time to time. This is not the exercise of the sovereignty of Parliament as we wish to see it.
If I am to believe that the TUC is telling the Government that a simple set of rules such as we suggest cannot be put in the Bill simply because the unions do not want it, it really seems that power has passed from Parliament, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) suggested.
In effect, we are saying here what Donovan said, that the rules need bringing up to date in many respects. The same was said in "In Place of Strife":
For this reason the Government considers that the present legal requirements relating to the rules of trade unions are inadequate, and should be extended in the interests both of the unions and of their members.
Now we are told by the Secretary of State that, following a TUC Conference,


the unions themselves have been bringing their rules up to date. He did not say that all unions had done so, but I take it that the majority have done so. So we have the fact that Donovan said that they needed bringing up to date, we have "In Place of Strife" confirming it, and we have the unions themselves thinking that it is right.
Everyone says that there should be a proper set of rules. My right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham thinks that the provisions in the new clause are the very minimum, and I agree with him. But it is a reasonable set of rules, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) pointed out.
The chief objection to incorporating this set of rules in legislation is that it is being done already. If it is being done already, there is no harm in having it in legislation because it is merely putting into legislative form what the unions are already doing. If the objection is that we cannot have it because the trade unions do not want it, that is not a reason which is acceptable to the House. We cannot allow ourselves to get to the stage of being so feeble that we cannot write into an Act of Parliament a simple set of rules about which 99 people out of 100 would say "This is common sense; we should have had them a long time ago." If Parliament cannot even do that, what can it do?
This is a perfectly reasonable new clause. It is moved in a spirit which wants to see the trade unions accepting the responsibility that comes from their special position. That is an important fact.
For all those reasons I hope that even at this late stage the Government will not oblige us to troop through the Division lobbies again and that the hon. Gentleman will say, "We will write these provisions in; we will accept this new clause. It only confirms what is good union practice already. It is right that Parliament should take this action. Let us move on to the next clause."

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Booth: It is most interesting to note the way in which reasons are adduced for one thing in one set of circumstances and for something different in another set. We have been told about

the special position of the trade unions in very much the same terms as we were told about them with regard to the 1971 Act. It was then used to justify rules and legal requirements, which went very much further than this, the controlling of strike procedures, and a number of other matters. Tonight we are told that it justifies only a much more modest proposition which should apply to trade unions and employers' associations alike.
In moving the new clause no reference was made to the defects in the rules of employers' associations which required this provision to be applied to them. We waited with bated breath until the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) made a plea that we introduce this clause to deal with his fears concerning employers' associations. It comes a little late. Nevertheless it is welcome. I considered very carefully how I might deal with employers' associations. My first thoughts were that there may be a very special case for dealing with this aspect. Employers' associations are possibly not subject to the same scrutiny as are trade union bodies. I have seen the proceedings of the TUC annual conference on television. I have never seen the procedings of the CBI televised.

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that I made no mention of employers' associations when moving this new clause. The reason is simple. No employers' association objects to these provisions being written into the Bill.

Mr. Booth: It is not because of submissions by employers' associations or the TUC that we ask the House to reject the new clause. It comes from a careful examination of the criticisms which Donovan made and the extent to which they have been met by a voluntary system. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition that those things which can be done effectively by voluntary methods should therefore be reinforced by this House? That is a different proposition from that on which this House has proceeded for a very long time.
It is proper that the TUC should be subject to more stringent requirements than are laid down in this new clause. I give one example. I will read what the TUC said when it considered the question of discipline and such criticisms as Donovan made of union rules in this


respect. It was enclosed in its circular sent to all member unions. The TUC said that the rules should specify all the offences and corresponding penalties; that the rules should prescribe the procedure for hearing cases, such procedure to comply with rules of natural justice. That provision will appeal to hon. Gentlemen.
The TUC spelt out what was meant by "rules of natural justice." It said the rules must provide for the right of appeal. Additionally, the TUC General Council went on to specify that the right of appeal should be to a body of higher authority; that wherever possible an expelled member should retain his membership pending an appeal; and that powers of appeal bodies to reinstate and reimburse or to make fines should be set down.
It is right and proper that the TUC should go to that length. Hon. Gentlemen did not go to that length. I commend them. They recognised that what the TUC can do in relation to its membership—and what the CBI can do in relation to its membership who have joined it in voluntary association—is different from what we propose to do in this House in making rules for those bodies.
Therefore, we are not acting at the behest tonight of employers' associations

although I admit my sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Harrow, West. We are not acting at the behest of the TUC in this matter. We seek to urge upon the House that the TUC and the trade unions in general are sensitive to the requirement to maintain their rule books not only in a condition which accords with natural justice for their members but one which makes for the proper regulation of their members' actions in the workplace, and in relation to advancing and defending the conditions of those members at their places of work. That is a condition which we recognise. It is one which we welcome. It is one which we think will develop. The carrying of this new clause would do nothing to forward and would do much to hinder that development.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I wish to inform the House that there has been a dispute between the Tellers as regards the numbers. I shall, therefore, have to call the Division again.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 304.

Division No. 72.]
AYES
[8.51 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bryan, Sir Paul
Drayson, Burnaby


Aitken, Jonathan
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Buck, Antony
Durant, Tony


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Budgen, Nick
Dykes, Hugh


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Bulmer, Esmond
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Ancram, M.
Burden, F. A.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Archer, Jeffrey
Carlisle, Mark
Elliott, Sir William


Atkins, Rt.Hn.Humphrey (Spelthorne)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Emery, Peter


Awdry, Daniel
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Eyre, Reginald


Baker, Kenneth
Channon, Paul
Fairgrieve, Russell


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Farr, John


Banks, Robert
Churchill, W. S.
Fell, Anthony


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Beith, A. J.
Clark, William (Croydon, S.)
Fidler, Michael


Bell, Ronald
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Clegg, Walter
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)
Cockcroft, John
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)


Benyon, W.
Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Cope, John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Biffen, John
Cordie, John
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)


Biggs-Davison, John
Cormack, Patrick
Fox, Marcus


Blaker, Peter
Corrie, John
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
Costain, A. P.
Freud, Clement


Body, Richard
Critchley, Julian
Fry, Peter


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Crouch, David
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.


Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)
Crowder, F. P.
Gardiner, George (Reigate &amp; Banstead)


Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)


Braine, Sir Bernard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen. James
Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David


Bray, Ronald
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Gilmour, Rt.Hn. Ian (Ch'sh'&amp;Amsh'm)


Brewis, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Brittan, Leon
Dixon, Piers
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Goodhart, Philip


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Goodhew, Victor


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Goodlad, A.




Gorst, John
McCrindle, R. A.
Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Macfarlane, Neil
Royle, Sir Anthony


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
MacGregor, John
Sainsbury, Tim


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McLaren, Martin
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gray, Hamish
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Grieve, Percy
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Madel, David
Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)


Grist, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shersby, Michael


Grylls, Michael
Mather, Carol
Silvester, Fred


Gurden, Harold
Maude, Angus
Sims, Roger


Hall, Sir John
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Sinclair, Sir George


Hall-Davis, A. G. P.
Mawby, Ray
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hampson, Dr. Keith
Mayhew, Christopher(G'wh, W'wch, E)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&amp;L'm'ngton)


Hannam, John
Mayhew, Piitrick(Royal T' bridgeWells)
Spence, John


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)


Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hn. Miss
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)


Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Peter
Sproat, Iain


Havers, Sir Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Stainton, Keith


Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hayhoe, Barney
Moate, Roger
Stanley, John


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Molyneaux, James
Steel, David


Henderson, J.S.B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Money, Ernle
Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)


Heseltine, Michael
Monro, Hector
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Higgins, Terence
Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)
Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)


Hill, James A.
Morgan, Geraint
Stokes, John


Holland, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stradling Thomas, John


Hooson, Emlyn
Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)
Tapsell, Peter


Hordern, Peter
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taverne, Dick


Howe, Rt.Hn. Sir Geoffrey(Surrey, E.)
Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)
Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Mudd, David
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Neave, Airey
Tebbit, Norman


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Neubert, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hunt, John
Newton, Tony (Braintree)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Hurd, Douglas
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net, H'dn S.)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Normanton, Tom
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Iremonger, T. L.
Nott, John
Townsend, C. D.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Onslow, Cranley
Trotter, Neville


James, David
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Tugendhat, Christopher


Jenkin, Rt.Hn.P. (R'dgeW'std&amp;W'fd)
Osborn, John
Tyler, Paul


Jessel, Toby
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pardoe, John
Viggers, Peter


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire. S.)
Waddington, David


Jopling, Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Percival, Ian
Wakeham, John


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Pink, R. Bonner
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Kershaw, Anthony
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wall, Patrick


Kimball, Marcus
Prior, Rt. Hn. James



King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Walters, Dennis


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Raison, Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Kirk, Peter
Rathbone, Tim
Weatherill, Bernard


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wells, John


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Redmond, Robert
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Knox, David
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Wiggin, Jerry


Lamont, Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Lane, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't' gd' ns' re)
Winterton, Nicholas


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Lawrence, Ivan
Ridsdale, Julian
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Younger, Hn. George


Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland &amp; Stmford)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)



Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Loveridge, John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Mr. Adam Butler and


Luce, Richard
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.


MacArthur, Ian
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Buchan, Norman


Allaun, Frank
Bidwell, Sydney
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn


Archer, Peter
Bishop, E. S.
Butler, Mrs.Joyce (H'gey, WoodGreen)


Armstrong, Ernest
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Callaghan, Rt.Hn. James (Cardiff, S.E.)


Ashley, Jack
Boardman, H.
Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)


Ashton, Joe
Booth, Albert
Campbell, Ian


Atkins, Ronald
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cant, R. B.


Atkinson, Norman
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Carmichael, Neil


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Carter, Ray


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bradley, Tom
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Bates, Alf
Brown, Bob(Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)
Clemitson, Ivor


Baxter, William
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Cocks, Michael


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S.&amp;Sh'dltch)
Cohen, Stanley




Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Padley, Walter


Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Palmer, Arthur


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Hunter, Adam
Parry, Robert


Cox, Thomas
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I, EdgeHI)
Pavitt, Laurie


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Crawshaw, Richard
Jackson, Colin
Pendry, Tom


Cronin, John
Janner, Greville
Perry, Ernest G.


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Phipps, Dr. Colin


Cryer, G. R.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Cunningham, G.(Isl'ngt'n, S &amp; F'sb'ry)
Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)
Prescott, John


Cunningham, Dr. John A.(Whiteh'v'n)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)


Dalyell, Tam
John, Brynmor
Price, William (Rugby)


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, James (K'ston uponHull, W)
Radice, Giles


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Rees, Rt. Hn. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Reid, George


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Judd, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kaufman, Gerald
Roderick, Caerwyn E.


Delargy, Hugh
Kelley, Richard
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kerr, Russell
Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)


Dempsey, James
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rooker, J. W.


Doig, Peter
Kinnock, Neil
Roper, John


Dormand, J. D.
Lambie, David
Rose, Paul B.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lamborn, Harry
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamond, James
Rowlands, Edward


Dunnett, Jack
Latham, Arthur(CityofW'minsterP'ton)
Sandelson, Neville


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Lawson, George (Motherwell&amp;Wishaw)
Sedgemore, Bryan


Eadie, Alex
Leadbitter, Ted
Selby, Harry



Lee, John
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)


Edelman, Maurice
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Edge, Geoff
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney&amp;P'plar)


Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N.E.)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham.D'ford)


English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt. Hn. S.C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)


Ennals, David
Loughlin, Charles
Sillars, James


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Loyden, Eddie
Silverman, Julius


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, John (Newton)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Small, William


Ewing, Harry (St'ling.F'kirk&amp;G'm'th)
McCartney, Hugh
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray&amp;Nairn)
MacCormack, Iain
Snape, Peter


Faulds, Andrew
McElhone, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Spriggs, Leslie


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McGuire, Michael
Stallard, A. W.


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Flannery, Martin
Maclennan, Robert
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth.Fulh'm)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, Kevin
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael
Madden, M. O. F.
Stott, Roger


Ford, Ben
Magee, Bryan
Strang, Gavin


Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Marks, Kenneth
Swain, Thomas


Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Garrett, John (Norwich. S.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Meacher, Michael
Tierney, Sydney


George, Bruce
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tinn, James


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mendelson, John
Tomlinson, John


Ginsburg, David
Mikardo, Ian
Tomney, Frank


Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce
Torney, Tom


Graham, Ted
Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Urwin, T. W.


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Milne, Edward
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.


Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Molloy, William
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moonman, Eric
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watkins, David


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt Hn. John (Aberavon)
Watt, Hamish


Harper, Joseph
Moyle, Roland
Weitzman, David


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wellbeloved, James


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Murray, Ronald King
White, James


Hattersley, Roy
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Whitehead, Phillip


Hatton, Frank
Oakes, Gordon
Whitlock, William


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Ogden, Eric
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)


Heffer, Eric S.
O'Halloran, Michael
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hooley, Frank
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


Horam, John
Orme, Rt. Hn. Stanley
Williams, Rt.Hn.Shirley(H'f'd&amp;St'ge)


Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Ovenden, John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Huckfield, Leslie
Owen, Dr. David
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)




Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)
Woodall, Alec
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Woof, Robert



Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)
Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. John Golding and


Wise, Mrs. Audrey
Young, David (Bolton, E.)
Mr. James A. Dunn.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

APPLICATION TO HIGH COURT WITH A VIEW TO DISCONTINUING OR DEFER RING INDUSTRIAL ACTION WHICH EN DANGERS LIVES, IMPERILS NATIONAL SECURITY, ETC.

'(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State—
(a) that, in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute, industrial action, consisting of a strike, any irregular industrial action short of a strike, or a lock-out, has begun or is likely to begin;
(b) that the condition specified in the next following subsection is fulfilled; and
(c) that, having regard to all the circumstances of the industrial dispute, it would be conducive to a settlement of it by negotiation, conciliation or arbitration if the industrial action were discontinued or deferred,
the Secretary of State may apply to the High Court for an order under subsection (4) below.

(2) The condition referred to in paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection is that the industrial action in question has caused, or (as the case may be) would cause, an interruption in the supply of goods or in the provision of services of such a nature, or on such a scale, as to be likely—
(a) to be gravely injurious to the national economy, to imperil national security or to create a serious risk of public disorder, or
(b) to endanger the lives of a substantial number of persons, or expose a substantial number of persons to serious risk of disease or personal injury.

(3) Any application made by the Secretary of State under this section—
(a) where it relates to a strike, or to irregular industrial action short of a strike, shall specify the persons (whether they are organisations of workers, officials of such organisations or other persons) appearing to the Secretary of State to be responsible for calling, organising, procuring or financing the strike or other action in question, or for a threat to do so, and
(b) where it relates to a lock-out, shall specify the persons (whether they are employers, organisations of employers or other persons) appearing to the Secretary of State to be responsible for instituting, carrying on, organising, procuring or financing the lockout, or for a threat to do so;
and the persons so specified shall, together with the Secretary of State, be the parties to any proceedings on that application.

(4)—(a) Where an application is made to the High Court under subsections (1) to (3) above, the Court, subject to its being satisfied on the evidence that there are sufficient grounds

for believing that the condition specified in paragraph (b) of this subsection is fulfilled, shall make an order under this subsection.

(b) Any such order shall specify—
(i) the area of employment in respect of which the order is to have effect, that area being defined in the order by reference to (or to any combination of) any of the following, that is to say, one or more industries specified in the order, one or more undertakings or parts of undertakings so specified, and one or more descriptions of workers so specified;
(ii) the persons are to be bound by the order, who (subject to paragraph (a) below) shall be the persons specified in the application in accordance with subsection 3 of this section.
(iii) the date on which the order is to take effect and the period, not exceeding thirty days, for which the order is to remain in force.

(c) The persons specified in pursuance of subsection (4)(b)(ii) of this section in an order relating to a strike, or to any irregular industrial action short of a strike, shall not include any person who in the opinion of the High Court (nothwithstanding that he is specified in the application for the order)—
(i) has, or (as the case may be) would have, no responsibility for the strike or other action in question beyond that of being included among the persons taking part in it, or
(ii) has no responsibility for calling, organising, procuring or financing the strike or other action in question, or for threatening to do so, except in his capacity as an official of a trade union acting within the scope of his authority on behalf of the trade union.

(d) An order under this subsection made on an application relating to a strike, or to irregular industrial action short of a strike, shall be an order directing that, during the period for which the order remains in force, no person specified in the order in accordance with subsection (4)(b)(ii) of this section shall—
(i) call, organise, procure, or finance a strike, or threaten to do so, or
(ii) organise, procure or finance any irregular industrial action short of a strike, or threaten to do so,
within the area of employment specified in the order in accordance with paragraph (b)(i) of that subsection or any part of that area.

(e) An order under this subsection made on an application relating to a lock-out shall be an order directing that, during the period which the order remains in force, no person specified in the order in accordace with subsection (4)(d)(ii) of this section shall institute, carry on, authorise, organise or finance a lock-out, or threaten to do so, within the area of employment specified in the order


in accordance with paragraph (b)(i) of that subsection or any part of that area.

(f) An order under this subsection may also require any one or more of the persons specified in the order, before the end of such period as may be specified in the order for the purposes of this subsection, to take such steps (whether by way of withdrawing or securing the withdrawal of any instructions issued by or on behalf of that person or those persons or otherwise) as may be so specified for the purpose of securing that the industrial action to which the application for the order related is discontinued or (as the case may be) deferred during the period for which the order remains in force.

(g) Any order under this subsection shall indicate the scope of the industrial dispute in consequence of which the order is made, in such manner as may appear to the High Court to be sufficient to indicate the area of employment affected by the dispute and the extent of the matters to which the dispute relates.

(5)—(a) The provisions of this subsection shall have effect where an order (in this subsection referred to as "the principal order") has been made under subsection (4) of this section.

(b) If the period specified in the principal order in accordance with subsection (4)(b)(iii) above (or that period as previously extended under this subsection) is less than thirty days then at any time before the end of that period the High Court, on the application of the Secretary of State, may by order extend that period, but not so as to exceed thirty days in all.

(c) Where at a time within the period for which the principal order is in force it appears to the Secretary of State, that persons other than those specified in the principal order in accordance with subsection (4)(b)(ii) of this section—
(i) are at that time responsible as mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of this section but
(ii) are not then persons required to be excluded from the order in accordance with subsection (4)(c) of this section,
the Secretary of State may make an application to the High Court, specifying those persons and applying for the principal order to be extended to them; and the persons so specified shall, together with the Secretary of State, be the parties to any proceedings on that application.

(d) Subject to the next following paragraph on any application made by the Secretary of State under paragraph (c) of this subsection the High Court shall make an order specifying the persons who were specified in the application and directing that, in relation to any time after the order under this paragraph takes effect, the principal order, while it remains in force, shall have effect as if those persons had been included among the persons specified in the principal order in accordance with subsection (4)(b)(ii) of this section of this Act.

(e) The High Court shall not make an order under paragraph (d) of this subsection after the end of the period specified in the principal order, and, where it makes an order under that paragraph shall not include in it any person required to be excluded in accordance with subsection (4)(c) of this section.

(f) In relation to any person to whom the principal order applies by virtue of an order made under paragraph (d) of this section (in this paragraph referred to as "the supplementary order") the supplementary order may impose any requirement which, in pursuance of subsection (4)(f) of this section; could have been imposed on him by the principal order if—
(i) the principal order had been made at the time when, and in the circumstances in which, the supplementary order is made, and
(ii) he were one of the persons specified in the principal order.

(g) After the period specified in the principal order has begun, the High Court shall not, either during that period or at any time thereafter, entertain any application under subsections (1) to (3) of this section in respect of the same industrial dispute, or in respect of any other industrial dispute in so far as it appears to the Court that its scope falls within the scope (as indicated in the principal order in accordance with subsection (4)(g) of this section) of the industrial dispute in consequence of which the principal order was made '.

(6)—In the application of this section to Scotland, for references to the High Court there shall be substituted references to the Court of Session.—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This is the longest new clause on the Paper, but happily I am in a position to explain its purpose and meaning in a few words. Those words are to be found in subsection (1) of the clause which states:
Where it appears to the Secretary of State … that … a strike … has begun or is likely to begin … it would be conducive to a settlement of it"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members who do not wish to hear the hon. Gentleman speaking on the new clause to withdraw quietly.

Mr. Mitchell: The clause says that where it appears to the Secretary of State that
it would be conducive to a settlement of it by negotiation, conciliation or arbitration if the industrial action were discontinued or deferred,


the Secretary of State may apply to the High Court for an order 
for up to 30 days.
There are only certain narrowly drawn circumstances in which the Secretary of State can obtain such an order. They are that the continuance of the strike would
be gravely injurious to the national economy … imperil national security"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must appeal to hon. Members to listen to him in silence. I find it difficult to hear the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that many hon. Members also find it difficult.

Mr. Mitchell: Another of the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may obtain such an order securing a 30-day deferment of the strike is that it would
create a serious risk of public disorder, of
(b) … endanger the lives of a substantial number of persons, or expose a substantial number of persons to serious risk of disease or personal injury.
The whole House will agree that those are circumstances of the utmost seriousness to the nation and that it is right and proper that the Secretary of State should have such a power if, and only if, he believes that in going to the High Court he can help to bring about a settlement. It would be a useful addition to the Secretary of State's armoury in seeking to protect the public. With respect to hon. Members who may be strongly involved in the interests of trade unions or employers, the essence of the clause is to seek to protect the public.
We suggest only 30 days instead of the 60 days which was provided in some former legislation and which is the practice in other countries. That suggestion is made because it is felt that 30 days is long enough to enable an urgent public inquiry to be carried out, should such be the wish of the Secretary of State. That would generally be enough time to enable any substantial change in the stance of the disputants in a strike to take place, if it is going to take place, and the dispute can be settled by negotiation or public inquiry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and I have deliberately not allied the clause to a ballot on the

employer's last offer. That is because I for one have always doubted the value of such ballots. Almost invariably the members of the union will not vote on the issue but will treat it as a vote of confidence in the union leadership. Secondly, they see it as a situation in which they cannot lose, because if the ballot goes in favour of the union's rejection there is a possibility that a greater offer will come from the employer and there is no likelihood of a smaller offer.
There is useful experience in the United Kingdom as well as elsewhere of the operation of such a provision, because the 60-day cooling-off period in the 1971 Act was used on one occasion in a railway dispute, when the union and its members adhered to the order of the then Industrial Court. Some Labour Members have made it clear that they do not like the Industrial Court and that they would have much greater respect for the High Court. Therefore, we have included in the new clause the requirement of a High Court order. That is designed deliberately to meet the arguments that were advanced by some Labour Members.
It is true that when the cooling-off period was used it did not lead to an immediate settlement, but only one trial is a poor guide. The certainty is that in other countries it has been highly successful. If we look at experience in the United States, from which the Secretary of State is now borrowing ideas such as the independent arbitration and conciliation service, and if we look at the history of the cooling-off period we find that it operates successfully. The ballot may not work but the cooling-off period does work.
I remember vividly talking to the President of the longshoremen's union at the time of a strike in the United States. He was the trade union president who was involved in the dispute. He said of the use of the cooling-off period that it was a useful crutch for negotiators to have on which to fall back.
My final point in moving the new clause—if I might have the attention of the House—is that it could not be used arbitrarily at the capricious whim of the Secretary of State. I am not suggesting that the whims of the Secretary of State are frequently capricious. Nevertheless,


the clause could not be used in such circumstances. The Secretary of State would have to go to the High Court and convince it that the continuation of the dispute would injure the national economy, imperil national security, cause serious risk of disease or endanger life.
I cannot think of any part of the Bill which could not be improved upon by the insertion of the clause if we are to look after the national interest, people's lives, national security and the national economy. It is only in those circumstances that the Secretary of State should have the power to use the clause, and even then only if he considers that its use would be conducive to a settlement.
I commend the clause to the House as a useful additional armoury for the Secretary of State in dealing with industrial problems.

Mr. Tom King: I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell). I am sorry that he did not receive more attention from some of the less serious hon. Members in moving what I regard as an important new clause. My hon. Friend set out the arguments clearly for what is by any standards an ample new clause. It can be seen that it provides a power that is properly circumscribed and subject to proper constraints and that it would be foolish of the House not to provide such power for the Secretary of State.
There are occasions of which we are all aware when the settlement of a dispute runs up against the clock and only in the latter stages of the dispute do the two sides get down to serious negotiation. If there were the risk of a dispute, a stoppage or an interruption of the seriousness that my hon. Friend has described, and which is well described in the clause, which could imperil life and present a threat to national security—such circumstances could involve the whole nation and our responsibility as a Parliament—we would wish to see negotiators provided with extra time in which to continue their work and hopefully arrive at a solution. In the new clause we have changed the length of time. We think there is a strong argument for saying that the original provision of 60 days was too long.
9.15 p.m.
There is a problem of acceptance by union negotiators and members in the type of situation we are dealing with. Thirty days may seem a more acceptable interruption than 60 days. It is not unreasonable to expect industrial action to be suspended for that period. It is not linked to a ballot. I share the reservations of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke about the disadvantages of a ballot. This is not a substantial change or a radical alteration. It is merely a useful additional power which could be held by the Secretary of State in the national interest. He could use it only if it was conductive to the settlement of a dispute.
Obviously, many hon. Members will say that there will be many occasions when such a provision will not help. In that event it would not apply. There are, however, occasions when a little extra time could help to prevent a damaging dispute. The proposal is properly circumscribed in that not only does the Secretary of State have to be satisfied that it would be helpful but he has to persuade an independent High Court judge.
It would represent no fundamental change of ground for the Government to accept the new clause. It is a useful additional power which could be of real benefit to the nation in certain circumstances when there could otherwise be extremely damaging, dangerous and disruptive disputes.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Fraser): Except for the substitution of 30 days for 60 days and the mention of the High Court, the new clause is virtually a re-enactment of Sections 138 and 140 of the ill-fated Industrial Relations Act 1971. I shall try to give the House some other reasons for rejecting it.
First, the clause proceeds on the erroneous assumption that at the point when a great deal of tact, patience and ability is required to choose the right moment for the Secretary of State or his conciliation officers to intervene in a highly-charged industrial relations situation, the issue should be transferred from the unpretentious premises and conciliatory atmosphere of 8 St. James's Square to the High Court. That is not the right approach. We do not believe that we can solve such things


by mock Taft-Hartley in a mock-Gothic courtroom. The way to do this is by conciliation using well-tried methods.
Secondly, the clause assumes that the courts can intervene to improve industrial relations. This is not the case. The clause refers to industrial action short of a strike. Can it be seriously suggested that a court will be able to supervise whether a rule book is being operated properly by putting people in lorry or locomotive cabs? This is not so.
Thirdly, the provisions of the clause are unnecessary. We have adequate legislation for dealing with emergency situations. We have the Emergency Powers Act, which was frequently used by the last Government and Governments before them. We have the ability to set up courts of inquiry. We have the facilities of the conciliation service. These are things which in the past have been used.

Mr. David Mitchell: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Government already have power to order a strike to cease during a period of further negotiation?

Mr. Fraser: I did not say that. I said that the Government already have adequate powers to deal with emergency situations.
The method proposed in the new clause has never worked. If it was thought to be workable, why was it not used during the 1972 and 1973 coal strikes? Why did not armies of tipstaffs, bailiffs, sheriffs and process servers go round the pit villages to try to bring about a settlement? The previous Government recognised that situations like that seldom arise. I suggest that it is an appropriate weapon only for the purpose of committing hara-kiri.

Mr. Robert Redmond: The hon. Gentleman is saying that he must not have these powers in case the use of them makes the situation worse. No one is suggesting that the Secretary of State must use the powers unless certain conditions are fulfilled. If the Minister suggests that it is a bad thing to give the Secretary of State powers that he does not have to use, he is defeating his own argument.

Mr. Fraser: The argument that the clause is likely to be redundant is not a good reason for inserting it in the Bill. The procedure is alien to British and European industrial relations. It is copied from the United States. We have our own better, well-tried methods, and we do not need to import that procedure from the United States. There is no evidence that the procedure has been notably successful in the United States. The ability to hold up a strike merely resets the timetable for industrial action. The procedure is best left on the other side of the Atlantic.
In addition, the clause is badly phrased. It puts upon the Secretary of State a judge's function, namely, to decide whether there is an industrial dispute. It puts on the court a function which should belong to the Secretary of State, namely, whether there is an emergency. The procedure has been used on one occasion, during the railway dispute which was concluded by a ballot, and on that occasion the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) got a lot of egg on his face. All that happened during the cooling-off period was four hours of negotiation. Other methods of trying to deal with that dispute might have been better.
It is noticeable that the clause, which is a re-enactment of the 1971 Act, is not put forward by the official Opposition. I do not suggest that the Opposition are infallible in these matters or that they have an exclusive pool of knowledge, but it is significant that, having experienced the possibility of using these powers, they do not suggest that they should be re-enacted.
The Clause has been put forward by the hon. Members for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) and Bridgwater (Mr. King), whom I like to think of as Burke and Hare resurrecting a corpse in the morbid pathology of this debate. It is a corpse that stinks and would be better buried, and I hope that the Opposition will bury it by withdrawing the clause.

Sir Raymond Gower: That reply is an extremely frivolous one and unworthy of the Minister. My hon. Friend put forward the clause for the purpose of providing a useful power which could be used occasionally. The Minister pulled the clause to pieces in a silly way, using phrases about Burke and Hare which I


could hardly believe that I heard correctly.
The Minister has much experience in these matters and he knows that once a dispute starts, attitudes tend to harden and there may be circumstances in which a cooling off period would be useful.
The Minister's comment that this procedure may be used in other parts of the world but is not consistent with our methods was a "little England" remark. Does the Minister suggest that our industrial history is so perfect that we cannot look at the methods used elsewhere? Is he suggesting that everything we have done in this country has been so successful that we cannot benefit from the experience of others?
Finally, the Minister said that the clause had not been introduced by the Opposition Front Bench. But a clause can be put forward effectively from any part of the House. I thought that the argument was put extremely clearly and effectively from the Opposition back benches and I hope that it will receive overwhelming support.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, who replied to the debate on the clause, was not a member of the Standing Committee. If he had been a member, he would have had the opportunity to learn that it pays not to try to be clever, or frivolous, or to coin phrases, or to quote from the "bumper fun book" of Transport House.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman speaks from experience.

Onslow: Yes, I do speak from experience, unlike certain Labour Members.

Mr. John Ellis: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?

Mr. Onslow: No. I learned from experience in watching the Secretary of State for Employment in action in the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman to some extent mellowed and matured when he was confronted with what happens when a Minister wants to get his legislation through. Eventually we managed to persuade the Secretary of

State of that fact. The right hon. Gentleman's attitude to the Committee was constructive and understanding.

Mr. John Ellis: Rubbish.

Mr. Onslow: I cannot help it if the hon. Gentleman will not take it from me that the Secretary of State was sympathetic and understanding.

Mr. John Ellis: Rubbish.

Mr. Onslow: I wish the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) would stop touting his wares.

Mr. John Ellis: rose—

Mr. Onslow: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman can make his speech when he gets his chance.
The point I want to make to the Under-Secretary of State for Employment is that if he wants to make progress in the Report stage he should seek to reply to debates in the same spirit in which clauses are moved and to show an understanding of the seriousness of the subject. Those who took part in the Committee stage showed that they were capable of this sort of understanding. If the Under-Secretary of State cannot learn that lesson, then it is a pity. If that sort of attitude had not been adopted in Committee, we would not now be considering; this Bill on Report.

Mr. David Mitchell: Despite the wholly unsatisfactory reply made by the Government spokesman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) does not wish to move new Clause 4.
We come to new Clause 5 which perhaps the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) will move formally.

Mr. Cyril Smith: rose—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I gave you notice a little earlier that I wished to raise a point of order and it was suggested that I should leave the matter until after the vote.
A short while ago there was a disturbance in which there was a dispute over the vote. You, Sir, said that you would call the vote again because of the dispute. I believe that when in the past this has happened there has been some announcement or explanation of the reason why the vote has been called again. In this case I understand that the Tory Opposition disputed what had happened, thinking that they had a majority of five and, because they could not agree the situation with the Tellers, we had a re-called vote and it resulted in a majority of one. I should like to know what happened. May we be told the reason for taking the Division again?

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. I know nothing of the reasons for what happened, but my information is that there was a disagreement between the Tellers. In view of that, I followed the procedure laid down in Erskine May, which says:
If two tellers differ as to the numbers on the side told by them, or if a mistake regarding the numbers be discovered, unless the tellers agree thereon, a second division must take place.
That is what I did, and I ruled that a second Division must take place.

Mr. Lewis: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

New Clause 5

RIGHTS OF WORKERS IN RESPECT OF TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP

'(1) Any person who applies for membership of a trade union, or of a branch or section of a trade union, which is a party to a union membership agreement whereby it is the practice for all the employees, or all of the employees of the same class as the applicant, at a place of employment where the applicant is employed or has secured an offer of employment upon the condition that he becomes a member of an appropriate trade union to belong to one or one of a number of specified independent trade unions, and who—

(a) is a worker of the description or one of the descriptions of which, in accordance with the rules of the trade union, the trade union or that branch, as the case may be, is intended wholly or mainly to consist, or of which it wholly or mainly consists, and

(b) is appropriately qualified as a worker of that description, shall not, by way of any arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination, be excluded from membership of the organisation or that branch or section of it.

(2) No member of a trade union shall be subjected by or on behalf of the trade union to any unfair or unreasonable disciplinary action.

(3) Except in respect of non-payment of any contribution which under the rules of a trade union he is required to pay, no member of the trade union shall be subjected to any disciplinary action by or on behalf of the trade union unless—
(a) he has had written notice of the charges brought against him and has been given a reasonable time to prepare his defence;
(b) he is afforded a full and fair hearing;
(c) a written statement of the findings resulting from the hearing is given to him.

(4) No member of a trade union, or of any branch or section of a trade union shall, by way of any arbitrary or unreasonable rule or action of such organisation, be excluded from—
(a) being a candidate for or holding any office in the trade union or in a branch or section of it;
(b) nominating candidates for any such office;
(c) voting in any election for any such office in any ballot of members of the trade union or of any branch or section of the trade union;
(d) having a fair and reasonable opportunity of voting without interference or constraint in any ballot, or upon any motion, or in any election, in respect of which he is entitled to vote.

(5) The voting in any ballot of members of the trade union or of a branch or section of the trade union shall be kept secret '.—[Mr. Cyril Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes. 305.

Division No. 73.]
AYES
[9.31 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Buck, Antony
Costain, A. P


Aitken, Jonathan
Budgen, Nick
Critchley, Julian


Ancram, M.
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Crowder, F. P.


Archer, Jeffrey
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
d'Avigdor-GoIdsmid.Maj. -Gen. James


Awdry, Daniel
Churchill, W. S.
Dixon, Piers


Beith, A. J.
Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Drayson, Burnaby


Blaker, Peter
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Cockcroft, John
Fell, Anthony


Brewis, John
Cordie, John
Fidler, Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cormack, Patrick
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Corrie, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles




Fookes, Miss Janet
MacGregor, John
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fox, Marcus
McLaren, Martin
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Freud, Clement
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Gardiner, George (Reigate &amp; Banstead)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Mawby, Ray
Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)


Glyn. Dr. Alan
Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch.E)
Silvester, Fred


Goodhart, Philip
Mayhew, Patrick (Royal T' bridgeWells)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Goodhew, Victor
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Dudley (W' wick &amp; L'm'ngton)


Gorst, John
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Moate, Roger
Stanley, John


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Molyneaux, James
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Gurden, Harold
Money, Ernle
Taverne, Dick


Hall, Sir John
Morgan, Geraint
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hampson, Dr. Keith
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hannam, John
Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Hooson, Emlyn
Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)
Trotter, Neville


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Mudd, David
Tyler, Paul


Hunt, John
Neubert, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Hurd, Douglas
Newton, Tony (Braintree)
Waddington, David


James, David
Normanton, Tom
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pardoe, John
Wakeham, John


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Quenneil, Miss J. M.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Redmond, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Lament, Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't'gd'ns're)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Loveridge, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. David Steel and


McCrindle, R. A.
Ridsdale, Julian
Dr. Michael Winstanley.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Cunningham, G.(Isl'ngt'n, S F'sb'ry)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Allaun, Frank
Cunningham, Dr. John A.(Whiteh'v'n)
Ginsburg, David


Archer, Peter
Dalyell, Tam
Gourlay, Harry


Armstrong, Ernest
Davidson, Arthur
Graham, Ted


Ashley, Jack
Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Grant, John (Islington, C.)


Atkins, Ronald
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)


Atkinson, Norman
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Deakins, Eric
Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Hamling, William


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hardy, Peter


Bates, Alf
Delargy, Hugh
Harper, Joseph


Baxter, William
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dempsey, James
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Doig, Peter
Hattersley, Roy


Bidwell, Sydney
Dormand, J. D.
Hatton, Frank


Bishop, E. S.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Duffy, A. E. P.
Heffer, Eric S.


Boardman, H.
Dunn, James A.
Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)


Booth, Albert
Dunnett, Jack
Hooley, Frank


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Horam, John


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Eadie, Alex
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Edelman, Maurice
Huckfield, Leslie


Bradley, Tom
Edge, Geoff
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Brown, Bob(Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S.&amp;Sh'ditch)
English, Michael
Hunter, Adam


Buchan, Norman
Ennals, David
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I, EdgeHI)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, WoodGreen)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Jackson, Colin


Callaghan.Rt.Hn. James (Cardiff, S.E.)
Evans, John (Newton)
Janner, Greville


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wlch)
Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk &amp; G'm'th)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Campbell, Ian
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Cant, R. B.
Farr, John
Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)


Carmichael, Neil
Faulds, Andrew
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)


Carter, Ray
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
John, Brynmor


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, James (K'ston uponHull, W)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Clemitson, Ivor
Flannery, Martin
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Cocks, Michael
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cohen, Stanley
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Concannon, J. D.
Ford, Ben
Judd, Frank


Conlan, Bernard
Forrester, John
Kaufman, Gerald


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Kelley, Richard


Cox, Thomas
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Kerr, Russell


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Freeson, Reginald
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Galpern, Sir Myer
Kinnock, Neil


Cronin, John
Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)
Lambie, David


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lamborn, Harry


Cryer, G. R.
George, Bruce
Lamond, James




Latham, Arthur(City of W' minsterP'ton)
O'Malley, Brian
Spriggs, Leslie


Lawson, George (Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)
Orbach, Maurice
Stallard, A. W.


Leadbitter, Ted
Orme, Rt. Hn. Stanley
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Lee, John
Ovenden, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Owen, Dr. David
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Padley, Walter
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)
Palmer, Arthur
Stott, Roger


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)
Strang, Gavin


Lipton, Marcus
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lomas, Kenneth
Parry, Robert
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Loughlin, Charles
Pavitt, Laurie
Swain, Thomas


Loyden, Eddie
Pearl, Rt. Hn. Fred
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Perry, Ernest G.
Thome, Stan (Preston, S.)


McCartney, Hugh
Phipps, Dr. Colin
Tierney, Sydney


MacCormack, Iain
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Tinn, James


McElhone, Frank
Prescott, John
Tomlinson, John


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)
Tomney, Frank


McGuire, Michael
Price, William (Rugby)
Torney, Tom


Mackenzie, Gregor
Radice, Giles
Urwin, T. W.


Maclennan, Robert
Rees, Rt. Hn. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Reid, George
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


McNamara, Kevin
Richardson, Miss Jo
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)


Madden, M. O. F.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Magee, Bryan
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Mahon, Simon
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Watkins, David


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Roderick, Caerwyn E.
Watt, Hamish


Marks, Kenneth
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Weitzman, David


Marquand, David
Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)
Wellbeloved, James


Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Rooker, J. W.
White, James


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roper, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Meacher, Michael
Rose, Paul B.
Whitlock, William


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)


Mendelson, John
Rowlands, Edward
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Mikardo, Ian
Sandelson, Neville
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Millan, Bruce
Sedgemore, Bryan
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Selby, Harry
Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd &amp; St'ge)


Milne, Edward
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Molloy, William
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney &amp; P'plar)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)


Moonman, Eric
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N.E.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)


Morris. Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham.D'ford)
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Morris, Rt Hn. John (Aberavon)
Silkin, Rt.Hn.S.C.(S'hwark, Dulwich)
Woodall, Alec


Moyle, Roland
Sillars, James
Woof, Robert


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silverman, Julius
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Murray, Ronald King
Skinner, Dennis
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Small, William



Oakes, Gordon
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ogden, Eric
Snape, Peter
Mr. Donald Coleman and


O'Halloran, Michael
Spearing, Nigel
Mr. John Golding

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 6

RESTRICTION OF RIGHT OF TRADE UNIONS TO PERSUADE PERSONS TO ENGAGE IN STRIKE

(1) It shall be unlawful for any trade union official of any trade union to attempt to persuade any person whether a member of the union or not to engage in a strike or other industrial action—
(a) not being in contemplation or further ante of a trade dispute but having the objective of applying pressure upon Parliament or one or more Ministers of the Crown or any Court of Law in Great Britain; or
(b) same as referred to in subsection (2) of this section whether or not in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute if the strike or other action would be likely to bring about a serious hazard to the health or safety of any person or persons.

(2) No action shall be unlawful by reason of subsection 1(b) of this section if it arises out

of a trade dispute and not less than two weeks prior notice has been given in writing to the Secretary of State for Employment by or on behalf of the trade union concerned of the intention to take the action in question.

(3) Any person suffering loss or damage by reason of any act or action rendered unlawful by this section shall be entitled to take civil proceedings for damages in respect thereof.—[Mr. Onslow.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Onslow: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. [Interruption.]
Perhaps I may allow a minute or two for Liberal Members to leave the Chamber as noisily as they like. I hope to persuade the House that in moving the clause my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) and myself are reluctant to detain the House long in speaking to it. It is true—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May we have silence, except for the hon. Member who is addressing the House.

Mr. Onslow: Even I will try to heed your injunction, Mr. Speaker.
The clause would make slightly better sense if the first word in paragraph (b) were "Save" instead of "Same". There seems to have been a touch of the Alf Garnett about the printing of the wording. It is a charming innovation but unfortunately it is destructive of the sense. Otherwise the clause is fairly clear and I hope that I need not spend a great deal of time going over what is states.
I should like to explain briefly why my hon. and learned Friend and I are putting forward the clause. We were members of the Committee. We agree that, having sat through most, if not all, of the Committee's sittings, we were left at the end with no clear idea how the Secretary of State was empowered and how he would be minded to discharge the duty, which falls to the holder in his office in every Government of this country, of protecting the public interest against whatever threats might be levelled against it.
9.45 p.m.
I remember asking the Secretary of State at one point, though not on this specific matter, where he was prepared to draw the balance of interest as between the trade unions on the one side and the public at large on the other side. Even when reading what passes for the OFFICIAL REPORT of our debates I can find no answer attributed to the Secretary of State on that point. We now have another opportunity, therefore, for him to tell us where he sees the balance lying and at what point he is prepared to say that a Socialist Government—he himself is a Secretary of State—would stand and seek to defend the public interest.
The Under-Secretary, who has just replied less than adequately to the debate, said in his opinion the Government had adequate emergency powers. I am as unconvinced of that, having heard them recited, as I was unconvinced that the Government of which the Secretary of State is a member see the need to have the powers which the new clause would give them. I hope I am wrong. I hope that at least the Secretary of State or

whoever replies from the Government Front Bench will be able to tell us that he not only condemns the political strike but sees a real defence of the public against the political strike, whether that strike takes place in what are admittedly the peculiar conditions of Northern Ireland or whether it takes place, as we must conceive to be possible, in what we are pleased to regard as the more normal conditions of the rest of the United Kingdom, whether it takes place in an area where the stakes that are being played for, if that is not too frivolous a way of putting it, are those of human health and even human life, as we have unhappily seen in the case of the health service, or whether it is simply in an area where the losses that members of the public stand to find inflicted upon them as third parties are a massive loss of food in ships which cannot be refrigerated or some other considerable loss or disadvantage which is likely to be inflicted upon the long-suffering British public and which by that very fact exercise a political influence against the Government of the day to adopt a course of compromise if not of surrender.
I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will be able to give us a convincing answer to the questions cast within the framework of the new clause. If he does that, I shall be content. I do not make this argument in any spirit of mockery or refusal to be convinced. I put my inquiry to the Secretary of State perfectly genuinely. I am as anxious now to hear him say "Here we will stand. This defence we will provide. The public can rely upon us to give them protection in this deal and to this degree" as when this matter first came up in Committee. I hope very much that without further ado he will now be able to satisfy me.

Mr. Waddington: The Bill provides new legal immunities for trade unions. It legalises many practices which apart from this Bill would not be legal—and yet most people, while perhaps very sceptical as to the benefits which resulted from the Industrial Relations Act of 1971, I am sure take the view that there is no reason to think that today trade unions are weak and oppressed. Most of them would agree, if it were put to them, that the trade unions are strong and capable of doing considerable damage to the community. Most people, if asked whether


they believed in political strikes, would say that they certainly did not.
The attitude of hon. Members opposite has at the very least been somewhat ambivalent. One has seen a marked contrast between the attitude of right hon. Members opposite on political strikes in Ireland and their attitude towards political strikes in this country when a Conservative Government were in office prior to February. One has also been a little alarmed at the attitude of some right hon. Gentlemen and Ladies opposite towards the industrial dispute involving the nurses, when the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Services were not forthcoming in saying that Mrs. Brookstone was not entitled to usurp the power of Parliament and to tell Parliament how to behave.
My hon. Friends and I are concerned to have a clear statement from the Government on these all important matters. I do not suppose that we shall press the new clause to a Division, but we find it peculiar that the Government have ducked this issue time and again.
Everybody knows that some unions are now so powerful that they can do untold damage to the community and are prepared to use their industrial power to topple Governments. Everyone knows from the antics of Mr. Scanlon that some unions are even prepared to use industrial power to reverse the decisions of a court. In those circumstances, when a Government introduce a Bill to extend the legal immunities of unions and to grant them immunity such as they have never had before, they must tell the people how they will be protected against abuse of industrial power—whether it be a union deliberately setting out to get Parliament to reverse a democratically-made decision, an attempt to get a court of law to reverse a decision or an attempt, which would fall under subsection (2), to use industrial power regardless of the safety of other citizens.
I earnestly beg the Secretary of State to recognise that the time has come for him to make a sensible statement about the Government's attitude. So far, we have heard cant about the wickedness of the Industrial Relations Act, about how the TUC will set everything right and about how Hughie Scanlon is a very

good boy after all and does not wean half of what he says. At the end of the day the public know that although the Industrial Relations Act can be faulted, unions are now more powerful than ever before, that the Bill will make them still more powerful, and they are surely entitled to a definitive statement about where the Government stand.
Do the Government believe that Mrs. Brookstone can decide whether there should be pay beds, or should Parliament decide? Does Parliament decide that a judge should apply the law or, if Mr. Scanlon feels like it, should be decide the law? The new clause gives the Government an opportunity to say for the first time where they stand on these issues.

Sir Raymond Gower: The Minister may find it easy to reject the clause for technical reasons but I should like to add to the arguments in its favour. My worry about political strikes is that they fall equally on good employers and bad. One can understand the strike directed against a bad employer—a firm, an individual or a large limited company that maintains bad conditions or pays unsatisfactory wages. But what one cannot understand is the general, blanket form of industrial dispute, the ill effects of which fall on firms which have good industrial relations and firms which have bad industrial relations, firms which pay good wages and firms 'which pay had wages, firms which go out of their way to be good employers and equally firms which have neglected their duty as employers.
This disturbs many of us. It is something comparatively recent in our industrial history. In the years before the last war one could understand the reason for so many of the strikes. Conditions were bad. One could understand why people were ready to take that kind of action. But what is much more difficult to understand is this sort of strike, the effects of which seem to be applied indiscriminately against good employers and bad. It is in that context that we should like to hear the Secretary of State's views about these matters, although I appreciate that the new clause can be rejected for many reasons.

Mr. Foot: The three hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on the new clause have raised a whole variety of major questions. If I were tempted to answer them


completely, perhaps we should injure that happy atmosphere of speedy progress which we are all so eager to cultivate. Therefore, I hope the hon. Gentlemen will excuse me if I do not deal with all the particular personal matters that they raised. But they must not assume that because I have not replied about Mr. Hugh Scanlon I accept what they said about him. Some of their descriptions of these matters were grotesque. But, as I say, that is a temptation I should reject.
We on the Government side of the House do not believe that there is anything in the Bill which injures the supremacy of Parliament. I say that not only in reply to the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) but also to the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan). So far from the Bill injuring Parliament, we think that its passage will greatly assist the reputation of Parliament. It will do so because the best thing that Parliament can do on this subject is to pass workable Bills, and not Bills which are incapable of being operated. Therefore, that is what we are doing.
However, this is an important question. In some respects it could be said that this new clause is more important than the previous new clauses, because its passage would certainly cause grave injury to industrial relations in Britain, not merely for technical reasons and technical deficiencies in the clause but for other reasons which I shall seek to describe. Therefore, we hope very much that, after I have discussed these matters, hon. Members of the Opposition will be prepared to withdraw the new clause.
The clause provides for two different types of limitation on industrial action, and it is necessary to distinguish them. The limitation in sub-paragraph (a) on action having as its objective the application of pressure upon Parliament or one or more Ministers of the Crown or any court of law in Great Britain would apply only if such action is not in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. The limitation in sub-paragraph (b) applies to all industrial action likely to bring about a serious hazard to the health and safety of persons, but if such action arises out of a trade dispute the action would not be unlawful provided that two weeks' prior notice had been given to the Secretary of State. Therefore, there

is a conglomeration of two different ideas in the same clause.
The approach, we believe, suffers from a number of defects and disadvantages and may in part rest upon a misunderstanding of the position which will prevail under the Bill when it is law. The limitation in sub-paragraph (a) singles out particular types of industrial action for political purposes which are not in con, templation or furtherance of a trade dispute. It does not cover all such action. But the present Bill does not give persons, including union officials, immunity from action for breach of contract unless the acts inducing the breach are in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.
Legal action has rarely been taken in the past to restrain strikes carried out other than in the contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute and action under this clause would be similarly unlikely. It is difficult in practice to distinguish strikes called for political purposes from those which are in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. There are normally elements of a trade—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—(Mr. Coleman.)

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Foot: There are normally elements of a trade dispute in such disputes which have political purposes. In case hon. Members might wish to intervene to suggest that that doctrine does not win their immediate approval, perhaps I may refer them to the case last year in which this was demonstrated, the case of Sherard v. ALLEW, which turned on the definition of "industrial dispute" under the 1971 Act; but the points apply to a trade dispute too.
Lord Denning made it clear that a dispute between the TUC and the Government was not an industrial dispute and he implied that political strikes as such would not fall within the definition of "industrial dispute" because they were not in contemplation or furtherance of


a trade dispute. Nevertheless he held that the dispute in question might be an industrial dispute and he refused the interlocutary relief sought on that account.
Lord Justice Roskill, agreeing with Lord Denning's conclusion, said that the phrase "political strike" should be used, at any rate in a court of law, with caution because it did not readily lend itself to precise or accurate definition. It is all too easy for someone to talk of a strike as being a political strike when what that person really means is that the object of the strike was something of which he as an individual subjectively disapproved.
Professor Kahn-Freund, whose authority has been quoted earlier but in less good cause than I am now quoting him, has commented that the line between political and industrial action is far from clear. He asked
How can it be clear in a world in which the political and economic spheres of life are indistinguishable … Where is the line between a strike to induce an employer to raise, or not to reduce wages, and a strike to press the Government for measures which would enable the employer to do so?
He concluded that the problem was insoluble. Therefore, if Professor Kahn-Freund regards it as insoluble, it shows great temerity on the part of Conservative Members to think that they can succeed where he was likely to fail.

Mr. Onslow: I would not dream of rushing in where Professor whatever his name is fears to tread, but there is a limit to the extent to which the Secretary of State should feel obliged to blind me with science. Getting back to the words-of-one-syllable department, may I ask him to rehearse what he is saying more briefly by agreeing with the proposition that there is nothing in the Bill which fundamentally alters the position of strikes which are, by the admission of those engaged in them, primarily political in their purpose? That is to say, they are not necessarily to be treated as trade disputes because of anything in the Bill and there are other remedies which apply to strikes which fall outside the category of trade disputes in the first instance and, what is perhaps more to the point, the remedies of the third party, who may find himself crushed between the millstones of such a situation, are still as they were

before this legislation was brought before the House.

Mr. Foot: There is nothing in this legislation that would alter the position on these matters compared with pre-1971, but the hon. Member has not fully understood what I was saying. Not merely was I refuting what he said, but Professor Kahn-Freund was refuting him more effectively; he was showing that if one tries to describe political strikes in this way one will get into difficulties which one should seek to avoid. The suggestion that people should be encouraged to take action all over the country to recover the damage they might have suffered from such action is a recipe for universal chaos. It is encouraging litigation affecting industrial disputes on a scale which I would have thought even the most eager supporter of such intervention by law in industrial affairs would have been keen to avoid. I hope that what I have said on the question of political strikes is sufficient to remove any such suggestions from the minds of members of the Opposition.
Although that part of the clause relating to health or safety does not involve exactly the same issues, it does cover some of them. However, I shall not go into this matter in detail because when I went into subsection 1(a) in detail the hon. Member for Woking was not entirely satisfied, and therefore I shall abbreviate my remarks on subsection 1(b) in order to accommodate him.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that if the clause were pushed into the Bill it would do great injury to our industrial relations. I am not saying that the hon. Gentlemen who put forward the clause had that as their intention. It is clear that they did not fully realise, as others may not have realised, what would be the consequences of the clause if passed. There is not the slightest doubt that if the clause were passed it would overturn the definitions which Lord Denning, Professor Kahn-Freund and others have sought to understand, and therefore would run the risk that strike action could lead to much greater difficulties than anything the hon. Gentlemen had contemplated.

Sir Raymond Gower: I do not dissent from much of what the right hon. Genleman has said, but would he accept that great hardship and damage could


ensue—perhaps great national views-papers could be destroyed—through strikes caused by nothing to do with bad industrial relations, such as a strike based on the policy of a Government to carry on trade with a foreign government of either the extreme right or the extreme left? Clearly such a strike would have nothing to do with bad accommodation or bad wages, and yet some newspapers in this country could be brought to their knees in such a strike. Is that not a matter of great concern?

Mr. Foot: It is certainly a matter of great concern. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Minister of State and myself have spent much time in the past three months at the Department of Employment doing our best to try to assist in preventing strikes in the newspaper industry. It is of the highest importance in terms of free discussion throughout the country that we should try to get a situation in the newspaper industry which would avoid such strikes, but circumstances such as the hon. Gentleman mentioned would not be avoided by action as suggested in the clause;

indeed such circumstances would be greatly multiplied.
I do not wish to be provocative, but the clause could do grave injury to industrial relations in this country. I appreciate that that is not the intention of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it would be the result.
I hope I can summarise the matter without being offensive by saying that the clause amounts to the 1971 Act with knobs on and I hope that it will not be passed through the House at this late stage.

Mr. Onslow: I hesitate to disagree with the Secretary of State, although he must not take my silence for consent, any more than we necessarily take his silence for acquiescence.
The right hon. Gentleman has replied constructively. At least, he has made his position clear. Whether he has made the position satisfactory for the general public, I rather doubt, but I see no purpose in prolonging the debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

REPEAL OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1971 AND RE-ENACTMENT OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS

Mr. Speaker: We now come to Government Amendment No. 1. I gather that it will be for the convenience of the House to take it formally now, and pass it, because it is a paving amendment for Government Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 and it will be more convenient to have the debate on them.

Amendments made: No. 1, in page 1, subsection (2)(a), leave out 1 to 4 (general principles and ' and insert ` sections 2 to 4 '.

No. 2, in page 1, line 21, after 7' insert (2) and '.—[Mr. Booth.]

Clause 2

STATUS OF TRADE UNIONS

Mr. Percival: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 2, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert:
(1) A trade union may be either a body corporate or an unincorporated association.
(2) Where a trade union is unincorporated.

Mr. Speaker: I understand it is suggested that with this amendment we take the following amendments:

No. 45, in page 2, leave out subsection (2).

No. 46, in page 2, leave out subsection (3).

No. 47, in page 2, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(4) A trade union which before the commencement of this section was a body corporate by virtue of Section 74 of the 1971 Act shall cease to be a body corporate by virtue of that section at the expiration of the period of three months beginning with the commencement of this section and the provisions of section 15 below (as well as this section) shall apply to it on and after the expiration of that period unless before the expiration of that period it has again become a body corporate'.

No. 48, page 2, subsection (4), after first corporate ' insert:
' by virtue of section 74 of the 1971 Act '.

No. 49, in page 3, subsection (5), line 1, leave out from union ' to ' shall ' in line 6.

No. 52, in Clause 3, page 4, subsection (5), line 1, leave out unincorporated '.

No. 53, in page 4, subsection (5), line 2, leave out ' and '.

No. 54, in page 4, subsection (5), line 4, leave out from unions ' to ` shall ' in line 5.

No. 57, in Clause 5, page 5, line 2, after (68(4)) ', insert or 85(3))'.

No. 58, in page 5, line 4, at end insert:
(e) was immediately before the commencement entered in the Special Register under the Industrial Relations Act, 1971'.

No. 59, in page 5, line 4, at end insert:
(e) is a special register body as defined in this Act '.

Mr. Percival: I think that it would want only three more amendments for a full house, Mr. Speaker.
The amendments fall into their own categories. There is a series of points that we must take separately, but all are quite brief. As the Bill was drafted, it would have excluded what are now called the special register bodies, because it provided that a trade union must be an unincorporated association. A union did not even have the choice of being a corporate body. The effect would have been to exclude such bodies as the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives and the United Kingdom Commercial Travellers Association. Much pressure was brought to bear on the Government to remedy that situation, both from those bodies and from the Conservative benches.
I am happy to acknowledge that the Government saw the wisdom of those representations and took steps to ensure that those bodies should not be excluded, at least, not by the clause, which deals with the question whether a union should be a body corporate or unincorporate. There is still a doubt whether some bodies may have been excluded by the new definition. I hope that in replying to the debate the Minister can say something about that.
I should like to illustrate my point by reference to the United Kingdom Commercial Travellers Association. Under the clause as originally drafted, it would have been excluded because, being a body corporate, it would have been precluded from continuing as a trade


union and continuing to enjoy its status as a body corporate. That part of its possible difficulties has been resolved by the Government's amendments to the clause in Committee, but I should like to be assured that the Government are satisfied that, while they have removed that possible difficulty, there is not another difficulty that might face such bodies in getting themselves within the definition of trade union.
I thought that the understanding in Committee was that the Government had come to the conclusion that all those bodies which qualified as special register bodies should continue to be treated as trade unions and enjoy the benefits of the Bill and come under its obligations. I should like the Minister's assurance on that, if he can give it, in particular with reference to the example I have given, although I do not say that it is the only body that might face that difficulty. There may be others. I should like him to give a categorical answer if he can, because one can work from that answer to make comparisons with other bodies if they are in any doubt.
10.15 p.m.
I think that the Minister will feel that this is an area in which the bodies concerned are entitled to have their doubt firmly resolved, if doubt there be, before the matter goes to another place. The difficulties that I am talking about, if they exist, cannot be put right here, but they could and should be put right in another place.
I hope that it is apparent from what I have said that I want to make it clear that we appreciate that the Government saw the wisdom of the representations that we made about special register bodies. However, we are not so happy about the way they did it. One simple way of doing it would have been to accept the amendment that we put forward in Committee, which is now Amendment No. 44, which provides that a trade union may be either a body corporate or an unincorporated association. It then goes on to deal with the position of an unincorporated trade union. If that amendment had been accepted, that of itself would have cured all the difficulties of the special register body and we should not have been compelled to have all these amendments and a reference to

special register bodies in line 1 of Clause 2. That would have been unnecessary because by saying that a union may be either a corporate body or an unincorporated association we should get rid of the obstable which Clause 2 presents.
We still maintain the view that we advanced in Committee and that we are putting forward now because again, to give credit where credit is due, the Minister was good enough in Committee to say that he would consider this matter again and come to the House on Report to tell us his conclusions. We still think that the method which we advanced in the first place is far and away the better method because not only does it resolve the situation of the special register bodies but it does so in a much simpler way than that adopted by the Government. In addition, it has the great merit that all future organisations or persons who wish to make themselves into a body would have the option of being either bodies corporate or unincorporated.
The Minister knows perfectly well, like my right hon. and hon. Friends, that many unions have no desire to be corporate bodies. We would not dream, in the context of the Bill, of trying to introduce provisions to say that they must be corporate bodies. We accept that if they want to be unincorporated associations, then through the provisions of the Bill that should be allowed to happen. The provisions of subsection (1) ensure that the public is protected against any possible adverse consequence of a union being unincorporated. Provided that we have that safeguard we have no objection to a union being an unincorporated association, if that is what it wants.
However, we do not understand why a union should not be allowed to be a corporate body if that is what it wishes. There is no question of our wishing to interfere with the unions and to decide whether they should be corporate or unincorporated. The sole effect of the amendment is to give an organisation which wants to bring itself within the definition of a trade union and then to act as such the option of being either corporate or unincorporated.
Having carefully considered what was said in Committee and paying full attention to the argument that most unions might not wish to be corporate bodies,


we just do not understand why it should be said that these large and responsible bodies—it does not matter whether they are large and we are presupposing that they are responsible—which we want to see acting responsibly should not have the choice. That is the argument. If it prevailed, subsection (2) would be unnecessary. Subsection (4) would likewise be unnecessary. Amendment No. 46 is directed to that point. It is clear that subsection (2) would not be needed if that amendment were carried.
Amendment No. 47 is in a slightly different category. It is important. In Committee we put it to the Minister that here was a danger that subsection (4) might have unintended consequences. We understand that it is the Government's desire to get rid of the 1971 Act—and I say that without going into whether the reasons for that are justified. It follows they would say that bodies which were incorporated under Section 74 should cease to be corporate and should become unincorporated. That is what subsection (4) is intended to do.
Unhappily, the subsection is not limited to those bodies which were incorporated under Section 74 of the 1971 Act. It appears that, as the subsection stands, it might, by sheer inadvertence, catch some corporate body which none of us had thought about. We might find a body which, because it came within the definition of trade union, would lose its corporate status. I do not believe that the Government want to do this. Amendments Nos. 47 or 48 would remove any danger of that happening. They would not strike at anything which the Government are seeking to achieve. Either one of those amendments would ensure that we do not do something which we do not intend.
Amendments Nos. 49, 52, 53, 54 and 55 are all linked with the point I have made. If Amendment No. 44 were accepted, all those amendments would follow. I will not take further time by saying anything more about them.
But I wish to speak about Amendments Nos. 57, 58 and 59. The purpose of those is simple. All other unions and bodies which are listed in Clause 5(2) will automatically go on the list to be kept by the Registrar of Friendly

Societies. We feel that the special register bodies which in the first instance were being excluded but which are now to be included should also have the right to go onto that list automatically if they so wish.
The reason why we did not press his in Committee was that there was some question about whether the bodies concerned wanted that to happen. We felt that we should not push something which was intended to be for the benefit of a particular group of people unless they wanted it. No doubt the Minister has had the same notes from the British Medical Association, speaking for itself and the other bodies with which it has jointly made representations, saying that it would like to go on automatically. Any of the amendments Nos. 57, 58 or 59 would produce that effect. The neatest one is Amendment No. 57 but I do not mind in the least which of the methods is employed. I hope that the Minister will find it possible to accept one of them. If we do not do that, while professing to have amended the Bill so as to include these organisations, we shall nevertheless be treating them differently from anyone else.
The Minister was good enough to say to me that a reason for not making this change was that some bodies may not come within the definition of a trade union and may not be entitled to be registered. For bodies wanting to register in the future that must be a relevant consideration, but it would be contrary to the spirit of the amendments already made to Clause 2 to decline to accept one of the amendments.
The reasoning behind rejection of the amendment is the expectation that an organisation which applied to be on the list might not be able to satisfy the requirement that it was a trade union. I hope that the Government do not wish to exclude from the list the special registered bodies on the ground that new bodies must satisfy all the requirements. A large number of people will automatically go on the list, and the special bodies should be treated in the same way. That can be done by accepting Amendment No. 57, Amendment No. 58 or Amendment No. 59.
These are practical considerations which are of importance to a substantial


number of respectable bodies. I hope that the Government will go a little further in assisting them by accepting one of the amendments, even if they cannot go so far as to accept Amendment No. 44. I invite the Minister to reconsider the major point which arises on Amendment No. 44. Why should not we give these bodies the same choice that we are giving to the employers' associations? Amendment No. 44 would allow these bodies to be either corporate bodies or unincorporated associations, whichever they please.

Mr. Booth: The hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) has been kind enough to acknowledge that the Government have gone a considerable way to meet criticisms which were levelled at the Bill in respect of special registered bodies during the Second Reading debate and subsequently. This series of amendments is designed to persuade the Government to go a little further along that road.
In Committee I undertook to reexamine the position, and I have done so. I will explain why I feel that it would not be appropriate at this juncture to try to alter the situation still further by the proposed amendments.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 would be to enable trade unions to choose whether they would become corporate bodies. It is generally acknowledged that unions do not want to be corporate bodies. Unions are representative, democratic organisations in which frequently authority is not centralised. Incorporation is not totally appropriate to bodies which are organised in that way.
10.30 p.m.
The purpose of incorporation for most companies is associated with the limitation of liability. In the Government's view trade unions do not seek or require this, and it would be fair and proper for those who criticise our stand to say that we are in some senses denying trade unions a right which would be open to them if this amendment were carried. However, it is not a right which trade unions have sought. I have sought the views of a number of trade unions, and the only trade union which found difficulty on this point eventually raised no objection when it saw the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Percival: The hon. Gentleman says that it is not a right which the trade unions have sought, but that is surely not right. The bodies for whose benefit provision has already been made in regard to special register are surely the trade unions. It was they who sought amendment, the purpose being to enable them to remain both trade unions and corporate bodies.

Mr. Booth: It is a difficult point because they are special register bodies, and whether they are trade unions depends on the definition one attaches to "trade unions". The fact that provision was made in the 1971 Act for special register bodies recognised that there was something special about them.
When we originally considered this matter, one factor that engaged our minds was whether unregistered unions would be immune from suit. In Clause 2 provision is made for a union to sue or to be sued in its own name. That does not deal entirely with the point in the amendment, but it indicates the way in which the provision came to be framed.
The Bill gives all employers' associations a choice whether to be incorporated or unincorporated bodies. We believe that this is necessary since a large number of employers' associations carry out functions in addition to that of regulating relations between employers and workers. Even if only a few employers' associations came into this category, it would still be appropriate for them to have this power. So far as there is any indication of a trend in these matters, it leads us to believe that such associations will be engaged in other activities, such as trade promotion activities, and would welcome provision in the Bill which would give them an option.
The effect of Amendment No. 49 would be to give special register bodies who are trade unions the same protection in respect of restraint of trade as that given to trade unions which are not special register bodies. Special register bodies which are trade unions have protection under Clause 2(5) only in respect of Industrial Relations Act activities. This does not put them at a disadvantage in relation to other trade unions in an area where they have a common interest, namely an area of related industrial relations activities. It recognises, however, that there is a difference and that special


register bodies may be engaged in activities other than those of industrial relations.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 52, 53 and 54 would be to put incorporated and unincorporated employers' associations in the same position—that is to say, that they would both have a protection only in respect of restraint on trade. This would therefore limit—

Mr. Percival: The intention is that the protection would relate only to that part of their activities concerning the regulation of relations between workers and employers. I am sure that the Minister would agree with that limitation.

Mr. Booth: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The protection would apply only in the case of the regulation of industrial relations activities.
Again, we take the view that there is a distinction to be drawn between the incorporated and the unincorporated and that the incorporated employers' association should have protections which go beyond activities in respect of industrial relations because it is quite proper for the incorporated employers' association to engage in those other activities.
The original Bill did what these amendments seek to do. It put all employers' associations on the same footing. It was represented to the Government by the CBI that this was unfair as between the unincorporated employers' association and the unincorporated trade union and that, in order to make the situation equitable as between these two types of bodies, we should give this wider protection to the unincorporated employers' association.
We responded to the CBI view on this in Committee with Government amendments to Clauses 3 and 10. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not think me unkind if I say that Amendments Nos. 52, 53 and 54 are anti-CBI amendments and that I stand here to defend the CBI, which is not my normal function in life.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he could scarcely pay a greater compliment than to say that these clauses are anti-CBI?

Mr. Booth: I thought that I said that the amendments were anti-CBI. But if

what I said was a compliment to the amendments, I was ill-advised to say it. If I said that, there is no withdrawing it and it is on the record for all time. However, there has been no complaint made by employers about it.
We have created a position of equity as between the unincorporated employers' association and unincorporated trade union, and we feel that that is proper since they are both engaged solely in activities as between employers and workers.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 57, 58 and 59 would be to add special register bodies to those in Clause 5(2) which are placed on the lists of trade unions and employers' associations kept by the Registrar of Friendly Societies without their having to make an application.
The position at present is that any special register organisation can make an application. In Committee, by an amendment to Clause 2, the Government eased the position of the special register organisations by allowing them to retain corporate status. If they meet the definition of a trade union in Clause 25, they will be entered on the list by the Registrar of Friendly Societies on making application.
The hon. and learned Member for Southport made special reference to the United Kingdom Commercial Travellers' Association. As always in these matters, he was courteous enough to inform me of his intention of doing so. As a result, I have been able to look at the position of this organisation. It is by no means a typical one, but, since the question has been asked, I am obliged to address myself to it.
I understand that within the provisions of the memorandum of the association, which is an incorporated body, there are statements as to the aims and purposes which indicate that the association exists to improve the status and qualification of commercial travellers, to regulate relations between commercial travellers and their employers, to promote professional standards among commercial travellers, to arrange the provision of insurance benefits for its members, and to arrange the provision of legal assistance for its members. It is not stated that the association exists to carry out collective bargaining. The question of whether it fell within the definition would be for the


Registrar of Friendly Societies to decide, presumably on the basis of its aims in stating that it exists to regulate relations between commercial travellers and employers. I cannot give a guarantee on this. It would be a matter for the Registrar of Friendly Societies to decide. Presumably it is open to the association between now and the passing of the Bill to take legal advice and act accordingly, as can any other organisation which feels that it could qualify as a special register body, and apply for transfer afterwards.
In amending the Bill in this way it is not our intention to exclude any particular bodies. The amendment is not aimed at affecting any special register organisation. It is our intention that any special register body, whether incorporated or not, providing it falls within the definition of a trade union contained in Clause 25 of the Bill, shall be able to make an application and succeed in that application. Special register organisations are not in the same category as those covered by Clause 5(2). If they had met the definition of a trade union under the 1971 Act there might have been no need for a special register.
We have gone a long way since the Second Reading of this Bill to meet the very proper concern of the overwhelming majority, if not all, of the special register bodies. We have dealt with the question of their corporate status. We hope that there will be no difficulties in the application of the clause as it now stands amended. We hope that the clause will commend itself to the House and that the hon. and learned Gentleman, in view of this explanation, will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Mr. Percival: This debate will have served a very useful purpose. It has brought out a consideration to which the special register bodies may not have directed their attention. All special register bodies have assumed they will now be registered and will not meet with any difficulty. This debate will have drawn their attention to the fact that all the hurdles may not have been removed. This is good. They can now turn their attention to that point. I hope the Minister will ensure through his Department that special register bodies who have made representations have their attention drawn to this fact so that if

they want to make any further representations in another place they can do so.
The Minister has introduced parity between the unions and the employers' associations in relation to the protections to which he referred but at the expense of preferring unincorporated to incorporated bodies in both cases, a distinction which we find hard to understand. We could understand it if the employers' associations were to enjoy protection in respect of all their activities. We have in our amendment limited the protection given to employers' associations to protection in connection with the regulation of relations between workers and employers. That seems to us to meet the case.
The Minister has dealt with Amendment No. 44, but not with Amendments Nos. 47 and 48, including the question whether the Government may inadvertently unincorporate a body. Those points may best be pursued in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Tugendhat: I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 3, subsection (5), paragraph (b), leave out from 'voidable' to end of clause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 51, in page 3, paragraph (b), leave out 'voidable' to end of clause and add—
Provided always that nothing in this subsection or otherwise in this Act contained shall prejudice or in any way reduce the Common Law rights of a person who has applied to join but not been given membership of or who claims to be and to remain a member of or who has been expelled from a trade union or render valid or enforceable any rule or decision relied upon by the trade union which in the circumstances of the case would be held to be void or unenforceable under and according to the Common Law.

No. 55, in page 4, clause 3, subsection (5), paragraph (b), leave out from ' voidable ' to end of clause.

No. 56, in page 4, subsection (5), paragraph (b), leave out from ' voidable ' to end of clause and insert—
Provided always that nothing in this subsection or otherwise in this Act contained shall prejudice or in any way reduce the Common


Law rights of a person who has applied to join but not been given membership of or who claims to be and to remain a member of or who has been expelled from an employers association or render valid or enforceable any rule or decision relied upon by the employers association which in the circumstances of the case would be held to be void or unenforceable under and according to the Common Law.

Mr. Tugendhat: On Report of a major Bill the strategy of the Opposition Front Bench, of which I have little experience, is somewhat difficult. We have gone over the arguments on many of the clauses at length and in great detail in Committee and the House is anxious to make progress. I think that nine-tenths of hon. Members present in the House now served in Committee, so they are reasonably familiar with the points at issue. Therefore, we are paying no disrespect to the Bill, and certainly no disrespect to the changes that the Opposition would like to bring about, if we take as read many of the arguments and do not go over too much old ground to show our dedication either to changing or to supporting the Bill. In that sense I offer the Minister of State a non-aggression pact which I feel sure he will be happy to take up.
When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) suggested that I should move this amendment, which he dealt with in Committee, I faced the prospect with some trepidation, because I draw a clear distinction in my mind between legal and non-legal amendments, and I think of myself as a distinctly non-legal person. However, my hon. and learned Friend said that common law was common sense. Though I rather doubted that proposition when he made it, I have decided, since studying the issue, that on this occasion he is right.
The key point in the amendment is our view of the Bill as it stands. This is the point of difference between the two sides of the House.
Our view is that the Bill limits the rights of courts to provide common law remedies in favour of individuals who are arbitrarily excluded or expelled from trade unions. The position is not clear. Indeed, if it had been clear there would have been no need to raise it on Report. But our position is clear. It is that when there is any doubt in a matter of this

kind that doubt should be resolved in favour of the individual.
We accept that trade unions rarely misuse their powers against individuals. Clearly an organisation that exists to support the interests of its members is hardly likely to make a practice of trampling on their rights. We are not suggesting anything of that kind. However, we feel that in any human organisation fallibility and error can occur and that the Bill provides a loophole for abuse. Therefore, we believe that any loophole should be stopped up.
We recognise the point made by the Minister of State in Committee that individuals can be unreasonable, can have unreasonable recourse to law, and involve organisations in tedious and expensive litigation. We accept that that certainly can happen. But the Minister of State also said—perhaps this is more important—that the Bill does not and is not intended to reduce common law rights.
That is a fine statement of intent but it was not backed by legal opinion. The Law Officers of the previous Government regularly attended the debates on the Industrial Relations Bill, and if the present Law Officers had been given a run over the course, we might have been clearer on this point. But it was not to be, and we had to rely on the Minister's interesting but necessarily less than authoritative summary.
The problem is that the 1871 Act limits the common law rights of individuals in favour of unions. We accept that, as we made clear in Committee, if we had not made it clear before. But the limitation under Section 3 of that Act applies to purposes and not to rules. The Bill explicitly extends that protection to rules—a vital difference. Not all rules are necessarily covered by the word "purposes". There is a distinct extension of the principle in the Bill.
We believe that legislation should as clearly as possible enshrine the principles on which society—not just a sectional interest, however important and wideranging—is based. If the Government altered the Bill along these lines, an important principle would be strengthened. When in doubt, we should err on the side of the individual.

Mr. Booth: I appreciate the terms in which the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Tugendhat) moved the amendment. He need not express his trepidation when addressing himself to these complex matters. I had far greater trepidation when I first faced them in Committee. If I have a little less now it is only because I have been able to restudy the issue. I am a student who learns a little more each time he studies a subject. My job is to me an open university. I am learning all the time, and nowhere more than in the area covered by the amendments.
Amendments Nos. 50 and 55 would remove the provision that the rule of a union or employers' association shall not be unlawful or unenforceable by reason only that it is in restraint of trade. Amendments Nos. 51 and 56 would provide that the common law rights of would-be members of those bodies to bring cases against them are preserved notwithstanding the organisations' protection from action on grounds of restraint of trade.
Clause 2(5) and Clause 3(5) maintain the protection afforded by Section 135 of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, which is the basic protection of Sections 2 and 3 of the 1871 Act. So the point at issue has presumably been enshrined in the law of the land for over a century. In the first challenge to it of significance in recent times, namely, Faramus v. Film Artists' Association in 1963, the House of Lords upheld a majority decision by the Court of Appeal that Section 3 of the 1871 Act protected the rules as well as the purposes of a trade union. There was no doubt at that stage that the House of Lords took the view which I am arguing tonight—that the rules and the purposes of a trade union are protected by Section 3 of the 1871 Act. They are protected now by Section 135 of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. However, Lord Denning had proffered the minority view that Section 3 did not leave unions free to make any rule, however unreasonable it was, in restraint of trade.
There was also, in the case of Edwards v. SOGAT in 1971, in the obiter dicta of Lords Denning and Sachs, an implication, at least, that the protection of Section 3 might be set aside in determining that

certain "purposes" in the rules were not proper to a trade union.
Those are the only two instances that I can find, with the benefit of many legal advisers in the Department, where there has been any doubt thrown upon the basic proposition that the rules and purposes of the trade unions are covered by Section 3 of the 1871 Act. The clause in its present form removes that doubt. Therefore, it may be held—and it has been alleged—that we are removing a doubt which may have benefited an individual in bringing an action. There has been no proof or demonstration of that. The fact that the reference to this matter in Edwards v. SOGAT was in an obiter dicta shows that it was not crucial to Mr. Edwards winning his case in any way.

Mr. Percival: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the effect of what he has said is that the Government are here removing a doubt by knocking on the head an argument which was advanced in those two cases and was accepted in one of those cases, Edwards v. SOGAT? What the Government are doing is making quite clear that the argument which was advanced in those two cases and succeeded in one of them cannot in future be advanced.

Mr. Booth: Let me make the position clear on my understanding. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the argument was advanced in both cases. In one of the cases, Edwards v. SOGAT, it was contained in an obiter dicta. There was not an argument of the case as such which had a bearing on the outcome. The outcome was favourable to Mr. Edwards without this doubt.

Mr. Percival: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right about that. In the judgment of Lord Justice Sachs, he considered whether Section 3 was effective in that case to preclude the plaintiff from succeeding, and decided that it was not. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman says that that was obiter.

Mr. Booth: My understanding was that the obiter dicta of Lords Denning and Sachs were obiter dicta precisely because they were not absolutely relevant to the judgment in the particular case. In that case the union was not seeking to argue that it did not have a liability but merely to limit the compensation. In the case of Faramus v. Film Artists' Association it


was a minority view which was being expressed, and the majority view was upheld by the House of Lords in their decision.
Therefore, I contend that what we are doing in presenting the clause in this way, and what the amendment would undo, is merely an affirmation of what the common law rights are at present of people who would seek to bring an action against a trade union in this particular case. But it is not our intention that anyone's rights should be limited or that his protection should be removed. It is our belief that we are doing in the Bill is dealing with a limited part of the total area which is appropriate for law in regard to industrial relations.
11.0 p.m.
The House will in the very near future have to turn its attention to the question of trade unions and labour relations and consider how far it is appropriate to extend our law into the protection of employment. I hope that we shall be proposing such a Bill shortly, and in preparing for such a Bill we shall certainly have to bear in mind the questions which arise.
The House should therefore be grateful to the hon. Members who tabled these amendments in Committee and on Report. They raise issues which may lead us to disagree about how the question should be tackled or whether it is appropriate that it should be considered, but there is unanimity in this House that in making law we must protect individuals' common law rights in so far as that is compatible. It is still my intention that tonight we should freeze or enshrine the common law position until the House comes to consider the question of employment protection.

Mr. Tugendhat: The Minister of State said that his job had been an Open University, and it certainly seems to yield impressive results when he sets out to tackle these complex legal issues. I shall not disguise the fact that we are not entirely happy with his interpretation of it. We accept the good faith in which he puts forward his proposals. Of course, we accept the intentions he says underlie this part of the Bill. We feel that there is an unfortunate wording and we should place that on the record, but we will not

press the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS ABOUT PRO PERTY OF TRADE UNIONS AND UNINCORPORATED EMPLOYERS' ASSOCI ATIONS

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 4A, at end insert:
'(8) In relation to a trade union or an employers' association whose principal office is situated in Scotland, references in this section to the appointment and to the discharge of a trustee shall be construed as including respectively references to the assumption and to the resignation of a trustee, and references to an instrument appointing, and to an instrument discharging, a trustee shall be construed accordingly '.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Clause 5

LISTS OF TRADE UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 5, line 29, leave out ' or ' and insert:
' on 30th September 1971 or was registered at any time '.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Mr. Tugendhat: I beg to move Amendment No. 61, in page 5, line 33, at end insert:
'(5A) The Registrar shall not under subsection (3) above enter the name of any organisation in the relevant list unless he is satisfied that the organisation applying to have its name entered in the relevant list has made adequate provisions for complying with the requirements of sections 7 and 8 of this Act '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With it we may also take Amendment No. 62, in page 5, line 37, after association ', insert:
'or that it is not complying with a requirement imposed upon it by this or any other Act'.

Mr. Tugendhat: We do not propose to press these amendments. We had a very thorough discussion on these matters in Committee and I think that each side made its views clear to the other. The only reason we are raising the matter at this late hour is that the Minister of State, as reported in column 407 of the Standing Committee report, gave the undertaking that he would look into the question of union records. He suggested


he was not entirely happy with the situation as it was. He said he would come back to the House on Report, and these amendments would appear to give him the opportunity to do exactly that.

Mr. John Fraser: As the House knows I was not a member of the Committee, but I have read the reports of the debates which took place. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) will subsequently be moving an amendment which will be accepted by the Government.
It is a matter of judgment whether the amendment is necessary. We have had another look at the matter. Only a tiny handful of trade unions would be denied access to the register because most of them would go on to it automatically, and an even smaller, possibly infinitesimal number of trade unions might find their way off the register if the amendment were accepted and if they did not observe the provisions of Clauses 7 and 8 as now drafted.
We believe that it is probably better for the registrar to be able to identify trade unions which may be in breach of the obligations under Clauses 7 and 8. We believe that these duties are absolute. We believe that that ought to apply to trade unions and that penalties ought to follow.
We think that on balance it is better that they are not denied registration because the chances of identifying something going wrong on the register are probably higher than if they are not identifiable at all. I hope that the Opposition accept our judgment on this. We have examined the matter carefully. There will be a minor change proposed later, which can be accepted. I hope, therefore, that the amendment can be withdrawn.

Mr. Tugendhat: On that basis we are prepared to withdraw the amendment. Clearly the Government agree with us in the nature of our concern. They have a different view as to how that concern can be tackled and only time will tell whether they or we are right. In the light of what the Under-Secretary has said about this amendment, and about the acceptance of a later amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8

DUTIES AS TO ANNUAL RETURNS, AUDITORS AND MEMBERS' SUPERANNUATION SCHEMES.

Mr. Onslow: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 7, line 41, at end insert—
'(5) The Registrar shall at all reasonable hours keep available for public inspection, either free of charge or on payment of a reasonable charge, copies of all annual returns sent to him under this section.'
It is only right that I should express thanks to the Minister of State for his assistance in ensuring that we got the right words in the right place in relation to this matter. I hope that he did not find it necessary to call in the services of any of those intellectual gentlemen with far-away-sounding names upon whom the Government Front Bench seems to rely so heavily at times. On this occasion Anglo-Saxon logic and a good bit of common sense has enabled us to attempt to improve the Bill.
If the amendment is accepted, as I have every reason to hope it will be, we shall provide in future that back numbers of reports sent to the registrar by trade unions or employers' associations shall be available for inspection in the same way as was pointed out in Committee, as Companies House already makes back numbers of company reports available to anyone with a legitimate interest in them.
The Government accepted the argument which I advanced in Committee that it was desirable that this should apply just as much to trade unions and employers' associations as it does to companies. No doubt the Government, in coming to that conclusion, were much impressed by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr), who volunteered support for my proposition—which is something neither I nor the Minister of State normally expects.
I will not push my luck any further now. I hope no one says that I have got the matter wrong, and I hope that there will be no difficulty in persuading the House to accept the amendment.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I am not quite sure as to the appropriate way in which I should intervene in this matter, but in


the Standing Committee an attack was made by the hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) relating to the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trades Union. The hon. Member quoted a case which was grossly untrue, and he has since been informed about this. I understand that the hon. Member was written to and was given an absolute assurance on the circumstances of the case. The situation is entirely contrary to what he stated.

Mr. Hayhoe: If the hon. Gentleman looks at reports of the subsequent proceedings of the Committee he will see that my hon. Friend withdrew and made a personal statement to that effect, and that a personal statement was also made by the Minister concerned. As is the normal form on such occasions, those matters were not debateable, but I think that the Committee fully understood and accepted the personal explanations given.

Mr. Brown: I can only say that I have searched through the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings. Presumably it was caught up in the printing problem. I am satisfied that the House has the true facts.

Mr. Booth: The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) deserves all the credit for the improvement in the Bill that is being made by the amendment. All that has been done by my Department is to bring to his objective a form of words totally compatible with it. We did not have to go to any legal luminaries, professors of any particular persuasion or outside bodies. It was done by the good sense of those within the Department.
I join the hon. Gentleman in commending the amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9

OFFENCES

Mr. Hayhoe: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 9, line 7, leave out £200 ' and insert '£400'.
We debated this matter in Committee, where I proposed an amendment that the figure should be £500. The Minister of State produced very convincing arguments that £500 was inappropriate, but

he gave an undertaking to consider £400. I understand that the amendment may well be acceptable to the Government.
We started today's proceedings on an immensely harmonious note. If the Secretary of State moved the appropriate motion after two amendments from the Opposition side of the House had been accepted by the Government, we might end the proceedings on an equally harmonious note.

Mr. Booth: I join the hon. Gentleman in commending the amendment to the House. He will have achieved a considerable improvement in the Bill by it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Foot: We certainly have made good progress, and I trust that we shall make equally good progress tomorrow.
Therefore, I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dunn.]

RATING AND DEVELOPMENT (BEDFORDSHIRE)

11.12 p.m.

Mr. David Model: The title I have chosen for this short debate is "Rating and development problems in South Bedfordshire". I assume that fairly soon the Minister will be present to reply.
There have been a number of debates on rating and development problems throughout the country. Bedfordshire is no different from any other county in having experienced in the past two years considerable increases in its rating bill. That is why, in view of the present situation and the burden the county is carrying, I have sought to raise the matter.
In the past year the rates have gone up in Bedfordshire by more than 50 per cent. In these inflationary times a great


worry is expressed by many people about how they will meet the bill.
I see that the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) is now in his seat on the Government Front Bench. I should like to thank him for seeing a delegation from Bedfordshire 10 days ago. He is having a double dose, because I am now raising the question of our rates and development problems. I should like to thank the Minister and his staff for seeing us 10 days ago. I thank him for the answers that he gave then and I hope that he will be able to answer some of my points this evening.
The biggest item making up the 50 per cent. increase in the Bedfordshire rates bill is the education budget. In 1973–74 it cost the county £30,326,000. That is adding together the old County Borough of Luton and the old Bedfordshire County Council. This year, local reorganisation having put the authorities together, the estimated expenditure on education is £35,842,000—in other words, an increase of over £5 million. In addition, 1974–75 has seen Luton County Borough and the old county council merge into the new county, bringing about an increase of approximately 3,600 pupils, an increase of practically double the national average. From what I gather the number of pupils has increased by 8 per cent., thereby adding heavily to the county's education bill. Teachers' salaries this year will cost the county £18 million.
If we take what I call the middle-way argument and we transfer part of the education budget to Whitehall—for example, a proportion which would cover teachers' salaries—the domestic ratepayer would be saved £18 million this year.
Since I last saw the Minister a further crisis in the county has arisen over its reserve fund. I quote from the Luton Evening Post of last Friday, which says:
Local councils in Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire are heading into desperate financial trouble. In just three months some have already spent or earmarked the whole of their reserve budgets for the current financial year … Bedfordshire County Council, for instance, is already committed to spending £1·7 million of its £2·2 million reserve fund for the year.
There is gloomy talk about "retrenchment" and "cut-backs". The article continues:

There has even been one suggestion, rejected for the time being, that another rate will have to be levied if things get really desperate.
The crisis has deepened since we saw the Minister some 10 days ago. The reserve fund crisis has basically been brought about, so the county treasurer tells us, by the threshold agreement that the county is obliged to pay. He indicated that threshold agreements and increases in student grants have brought about the reserve fund crisis.
I briefly bracket together three topics—namely, overspill, the general growth of the county and the green belt. In South Bedfordshire the main overspill area is Houghton Regis. A point that is often put to me is that basic facilities are then required such as shops, pubs, phone kiosks, playing areas and community halls. It is argued correctly that those are the facilities that should be provided, given the increased housing development.
In Bedfordshire, though housing is still short, community facilities have not kept pace with housing development. If I may use a rather ugly metaphor, the housing horse is racing away from the community development cart.
I now turn to the growth of the county. I hope that it will be remembered that on our doorstep is Milton Keynes. That is an area that is also growing rapidly. We have special development problems in Houghton Regis. A major worry for me as the constituency Member is that community facilities are not keeping pace with the rapid housing development. Further housing development is bound up with the proposed green belt in South Bedfordshire. This was first proposed in 1960 and has never been confirmed.
What causes anguish to many people is the fact that sometimes there is development into the proposed green belt while on other occasions a person cannot get permission to build a bungalow in his garden or to build a couple of houses because he is told that they would come within the proposed green belt. There is this inconsistency which causes great upset. I hope the Minister can tell us whether we will be getting our proposed green belt confirmed. The present situation is unsatisfactory because it is half a green belt and half not a green belt for planning decision purposes.
We have recently had the report of the Luton, Dunstable and Houghton Regis Transportation Study Group. I cannot go into the whole report now, but there are three recommendations which stand out. The first is the commitment to build the north-south A5 bypass in Dunstable, which is welcome news. That would take a lot of traffic out of the centre of Dunstable.
Equally welcome news is the abandonment of the proposed Dunstable inner ring road. Thirdly, there is the proposal for a super bus service, with a bus running every seven and a half minutes during the working day, providing a greatly improved public bus service. Given the present rating system it simply is not possible to run this expensive bus service. If we are to have such a service—and it would be welcome—it would have to be tide in with a reform of the rating system.
Earlier this year I was told that the Government were reviewing the criteria for imposing 30-mph speed limits in villages. That was welcome news because we need such limits in every village in South Bedfordshire. The villages there are not built for fast traffic flows. How far have the Government got with 30-mph limit review and how soon will they be able to publish proposals?
The subject of bypasses is very much tied in with speed limits. We need more bypasses in South Bedfordshire. I think particularly of the villages of Barton, Toddington and Leighton Buzzard, all of which are groaning under the weight of heavy traffic going through them. Leighton Buzzard in particular needs the southern access road. Road use is rising rapidly all the time in South Bedfordshire and I hope that we shall soon be moving towards a date for the construction of bypasses in these villages.
The Heavy Commercial Vehicles (Controls and Regulations) Act 1973—a thoroughly welcome reform—needs to be implemented as quickly as possible in South Bedfordshire. As the onus is on the county council to provide alternative routes for heavy traffic, will there be a feasibility study of the disused railway line between Dunstable and Leyton Buzzard with a view to converting that into a route for heavy lorries only? It may or may not be possible. If it were, it would get rid of heavy traffic from

the villages between Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard.
I come now to the subject of the local ombudsman. The Minister for Planning and Local Government wrote to me on 27th June saying that the Government were considering how the work load of the local ombudsmen was developing. He said:
It may eventually be necessary to build up to seven or eight Local Commissioners for the whole of England, but I should judge it most unlikely that a Commissioner will ever be needed for every county.
I hope that the Government can get some publicity across to the people in my constituency and in the country generally about the work of the local ombudsmen. Three have been appointed. It is important that ratepayers should know more about them. I am not necessarily committed to one per county but we shall need more than three if local grievances are to be remedied, as is hoped for and laid down in the Local Government Act 1972.
I hope that we can have regional ombudsmen. We could certainly do with one in the Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire area. In South Bedfordshire we are being asked to do a great deal for ourselves and for London—for ourselves in improving our schools, roads and community facilities and for London by taking overspill. In view of the rating increases we need more central Government help and a changed rating system.
On the question of the future development of South Bedfordshire, there are four golden rules which I hope planners and developers and central and local government will always remember. First, let us not allow complete building up between South Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes. We are in danger of building up from central London a long way towards Birmingham. I hope that the planners will remember that Milton Keynes, with its rapid development, is on our doorstep.
Secondly, will planners please remember the need for a balance between cars and buses. There is a great need for improved public transport in South Bedfordshire. Many of the inhabitants are car owners and many workers earn their daily bread by manufacturing cars. We could almost be regarded as a pilot area for the striking of a proper balance between the


use of cars and buses. There is a vital need for improved bus services, bearing in mind that we are used to full employment and not everyone can get to work by car. I mentioned the super bus service and the problems of Houghton Regis. That area is particularly in need of improved bus services.
The third golden rule concerns the balance between village and town. So far there is a reasonable balance, but there are fears that many villages might be joined up to Dunstable or Leighton Buzzard and that the whole area will be built up. A proper balance between village and town enriches the community.
Fourthly, let the planners always remember that as the number of working hours per week drops greater onus is put on local authorities for the improvement of leisure facilities. There are few leisure facilities in South Bedfordshire and we need many more. We are used to full employment, a high level of exports, a high level of training and, on the whole, a high standard of living. We have never suffered from unemployment as have many other parts of the country. With rapid development comes the desire for improved community facilities. We are not keeping pace with the essentials that make for a more civilised life. People work long hours in arduous conditions in the engineering manufacturing industry, and when they come home after a hard day's work—or a hard night's work—they desperately want better leisure facilities. They also want their journey to work to be easier.
In helping ourselves and in helping London with its problems we need not only more Government assistance, but a changed rating system which will ease the burden on the Bedfordshire ratepayer.

11.27 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): I apologise to the House and to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) for missing the first minute of the debate. I am glad, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is, that we are able to have the debate before midnight and not at 3 o'clock in the morning. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the delegation which he brought to see me. My officials and I learnt a great deal

from that delegation which will be of assistance to us.
The hon. Gentleman spoke first of the rate increase in South Bedfordshire. I accept that the domestic rate bill in South Bedfordshire has this year gone up by 40·44 per cent., as against an average for the country as a whole of 30 per cent., although by alteration of the variable domestic element to a fixed element the district gained by 1½p—from 11½p to 13p.
Although there have been slight variations in the amount of domestic relief, there is still basic objection to the vast increase in rates this year. We are the first Government in history to put the whole matter of rates to a completely independent inquiry which is to report next year. The job of the inquiry is to find a better alternative rating system, if one can be found.
I accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman and by his delegation that the existing rate system is becoming burdensome on many people, and we have set up this independent inquiry to see whether better methods of raising local finance can be found.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the education budget. One problem arises from the formula that was adopted by our predecessors in the needs element. The key difficulty that I have found is that the formula is based on 1971–72 figures. That is all right if the authority is static, but if an authority is growing at the rate at which the hon. Gentleman's constituency is growing, working on figures that are nearly four years old results in an adverse effect on the district concerned. I hope that this year, in the work that we are doing with the local authority associations and in the sample dips with authorities, we shall consider whether we can work on this year's estimates, rather than on figures from the old, dead authorities, in fixing the rate support grant. That would clearly take away many of the difficulties that are being experienced in expanding areas such as South Bedfordshire.
The hon. Gentleman went on to discuss the question of a supplementary rate support increase order. I appreciate the difficulties facing the hon. Gentleman's district and the county. We are discussing with the Treasury the possibility—I do


not hold out a lot of hope on this—of making advances of the rate support grant early because of the cash flow and critical problems of local authority finance in this unusual year.
I understand that it is never done to say that this Dispatch Box that an increase order will be brought in, but I have never known a year when such an order was more likely to come. Having said that and thereby squared myself with the Treasury, I have to go on to say that it will meet only a proportion of the cost of the threshold agreement and the results of inflation. I advise the hon. Gentleman's authority to exercise a little patience and wait to see what we do in this direction. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are aware of the cash flow and the critical problems of the local authorities.
The hon. Gentleman went on to mention student grants. Here I give credit to our predecessors, because 90 per cent. of student grants are met from national resources. The figure used to be 75 per cent. There may still be a problem, but it is not as great as it used to be when a greater proportion had to be met locally. The hon. Gentleman is lucky in having within his area a greater proportion of students than one finds in many areas, and therefore this may be a particular problem in Bedfordshire in general.
I now propose to say something about development within the hon. Gentleman's area. When he was dealing with Houghton Regis, the hon. Gentleman said that "the housing horse was racing away". I cannot accept that with regard to Houghton Regis. The first stage of the scheme was for 1,430 houses, and that was completed. The second stage, which began in 1970—four years ago—was for 2,500 houses, of which 430 have been completed and about 160 are under construction.
That represents little more than 100 houses a year in the Houghton Regis scheme, and neither the South Bedfordshire District Council nor the Bedfordshire County Council has complained about the rate of development of the infrastructure. It is understood that there is no problem over the provision of junior schools, although the provision of middle schools may be delayed as a result of

the changes announced last December by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. In other respects, social provision is keeping pace with the expansion. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that an all-weather sports pitch should be available by September and there is a plan for a swimming pool. It is hoped that social provisions will keep pace with what is at present not a rapid expansion of Houghton Regis at the rate of just over 100 houses a year.
The hon. Gentleman went on to deal with a subject which I know is dear to his heart, because he has regularly raised in the House, both with the previous Government and with this Government—matters affecting the green belt and developments within it. He asked me whether South Bedfordshire would be getting its green belt, and getting it quickly.
This matter started as long ago as 1960, when the proposed green belt was first envisaged. In view of the planning changes introduced by the Tory Government in the Local Government Act in 1972, we think that the strategic plan to be issued by the Bedfordshire County Council, which may well contain many of the proposals at present in existence in the half and half world of the green belt the hon. Gentleman referred to, should be a definitive document. This is a local matter for Bedfordshire to decide. As soon as the difficulties are resolved, I hope that Bedfordshire will issue the strategic plan and then the problem of what is green belt and what is not will be firm for all to see—the House, the Department, the county council, and—most important of all—the developers and the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
The hon. Gentleman went on to raise the question of roads and the bypass to the A5. The report of the Luton and Dunstable Transportation Study has only recently been received in the Department and its detailed recommendations are still under examination, so I cannot comment in detail. The hon. Gentleman said that he was delighted that there would be a plan for an A5 bypass. I understand that there are no plans to build a wholly A5 bypass, although the study recognised the limited north-south bypass for Dunstable.
There are, however, two schemes in the preparation list to provide a relief road


to A505, running east-west in Luton and Dunstable. Similarly, there is a scheme in the preparation list to bypass Toddington on A5120. Under the new system of transport supplementary grant being introduced on 1st April 1975, it will be for Bedfordshire County Council to decide on the priorities and timing of these schemes.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned speed limits in villages. I am aware of the problems, both generally and in my constituency. I am aware, too, that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency there is the problem of lorries carrying bricks that go on some village roads. I know that the county council and district council are well aware of this and will be taking account of the hon. Gentleman's point as to the 30 mph limit. I regret to say that at present I cannot take the matter further than did my hon. Frend the Under-Secretary in reply to the hon. Gentleman's question.
The hon. Gentleman then mentioned Barton. I am not a Bedfordshire man, and I must ask the hon Gentleman whether I am right in assuming that he was referring to Barton-in-the-Clay, on the A6.

Mr. Madel: Yes.

Mr. Oakes: There is a scheme to bypass the village in the preparation pool, but again this would be a matter for the county council to resolve. It does not form part of the proposed first stage of the lorry route network, which has not yet been published, and there is little likelihood that work will start on the Barton-in-the-Clay bypass before 1980 because of the difficulties of the availability of finance for roads. I repeat that this will be a matter for the Bedfordshire County Council to consider in its transportation study.
The suggestion was made by the hon. Gentleman that there should be seven or eight ombudsmen. We have decided to follow the decision of the Conservative Government and to appoint initially three Commissioners for Local Government. If the need arises for further commissioners, more could be appointed. What is envisaged is that the three commissioners will each have responsibility for a specific region. If more commissioners are needed then they could be appointed for other regions, but it would be wasteful if it were decided to appoint seven or eight commissioners, with the necessary staff and all the rest of it, and it were then discovered that we did not need as many as seven or eight. It is better to proceed slowly and to appoint three to begin with. I would not go along with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that there would be sufficient work for county commissioners, but if there is need for regional commissioners additional people could be brought in subsequently.
I appreciate that the area in question is an intake area from London, but the hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks pose a dilemma which any Government, be it Labour or Conservative, would face at present in terms of local government. This relates to the demand for better local services and on the other hand for a reduction in rates. I can well understand the hon. Gentleman seeking to ask for better 'bus services and other services in the area—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eighteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.